Andrew Miller: A number of things are going on slightly behind the scenes to combat this dreadful crime, which coststhe country a huge sum of money both in terms of the impact on our constituents and the cost to the law enforcement agencies. One of those good things is the get safe online website, which seeks to promote some of the basic steps that individuals and businesses should be taking. Will my hon. Friend look at such schemes and at ways in which they can be promoted more widely, for example, by television advertising, so that more people become aware of the important safeguards that they can put in place to protect their own identity?

Nicholas Clegg: With88 million personal data records stolen in the last year from Government computer systems in the United States, including 26.5 million army veterans' records in a single theft, and with reports of civil servants in this country selling hundreds of thousands of records to organised criminals for tax credit fraud, does the Minister agree that holding so much personal information on one single ID card database will—far from dealing with identity theft—be an open invitation to criminals to commit even greater identity fraud?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know—if he does not I am happy to meet him to talk in detail about it—that that is not the only source of counter-terrorism funding for our ports and other aspects of protective services. The future disbursal of that and other such streams are a matter that we currently have under discussion. However, I take his points, and through him, the points made constantly by the North Wales police authority and the chief constable that there is a real issue in terms of protective services at those sea ports—not least at Holyhead, as he indicates. If he wants to secure a meeting with me to discuss the matter further—perhaps with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—I am more than happy to take part.

Richard Benyon: In the light of the so-called sex-for-visas scandal that was exposed by  The Observer not long ago, does the Minister agree that it takes enormous courage for victims to expose such wrongdoing and will he tell the House what actions have been taken against the officials concerned?

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the encouraging response post the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations. Will the Home Office now address the 100 or so men—they are mostly in their twilight years—who were almost certainly innocent of crimes for which they were framed, for want of a better word, owing to the police methods on which the Committee made recommendations? Will the Minister work with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to speed up the cases of the men, who are almost certainly in prison for crimes that they did not commit?

Tony McNulty: Without rehearsing all the arguments about mergers and the report from the inspectorate, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that those in his constituency who suggested that, were entirely wrong. They were no doubt misled by him—in his constituency, not in the House, of course; I would not suggest that at all. We still think that sorting out the gaps at level 2—in terms of serious organised crime and counter-terrorism—as indicated in the report would enhance neighbourhood policing rather than otherwise, because every time a significant inquiry or investment of time were needed due to a major incident, the abstraction of neighbourhood policing would not be the very first thing to happen, as is still the case.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the Minister drop the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) a note.

Keith Simpson: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We join him in offering condolences to the Governments of Lebanon and Israel, and to President Abbas, for the losses that they have suffered, and to the families of those affected.
	We are all extremely concerned by these events. The crisis has entered into a new and gravely dangerous phase. What appeared to be a local and contained Israeli-Palestinian confrontation risks becoming a regional conflict. As the Minister said, our first concern is for the welfare and safety of British nationals in Lebanon and Israel. We welcome his statement that the Government are acting to protect British citizens in the area. What number of British citizens and those with dual nationality reside in Lebanon, how many of them applied for evacuation and how many people do the Government envisage having to move to safety?
	We welcome the news that two Royal Navy vessels are now off the coast of Lebanon and that two others have been despatched. Can the Minister confirm when the order was originally given for the ships to leave for the Mediterranean?
	According to the Foreign Office document, "Information for British nationals in Lebanon", dated yesterday, it is not currently safe for people to try to leave Lebanon. What representations have been made to the Government of Israel to ensure that the lives of British citizens will not be in danger during an evacuation programme? What advice have the Government given to UK citizens in Israel—stay put, or leave?
	I understand that the UN Secretary-General's mission is in the region and due to brief the Security Council on Thursday. What support have the Government offered to that mission beyond the logistical support that the Minister mentioned? What are its aims and what action do the Government anticipate from the Security Council?
	The G8 statement calls for the "creation of the conditions" that could lead to a cessation of violence. Those include the release of the Israeli hostages, the end of rocket attacks on Israel, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and the release of Palestinian parliamentarians. Is it realistic to expect that those conditions can be fulfilled in the absence of a ceasefire and in the context of a rapidly escalating conflict?
	What role does the Minister see for diplomacy, particularly with countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to put pressure on Hezbollah and to mediate in the release of the captured Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and in Gaza?
	The Prime Minister and the UN Secretary-General have called for an international force to be deployed into southern Lebanon to halt the bloodshed. What discussions have the Government had with the Lebanese Government regarding those proposals? When does the Minister envisage that force being deployed—before or after hostilities have ceased? Would this plan involve a commitment of British troops?
	The welfare of innocent civilians caught in the fighting is of great concern to everybody. What representations have the Government made to the Israeli Government about the need to avoid civilian causalities and the destruction of infrastructure in the operations in Gaza and in Lebanon? There are reports of Iran and Syria providing Hezbollah with weaponry that is being used to attack Israel, as the Minister mentioned. What representations have been made to those two countries to test their willingness to bring pressure to bear on Hezbollah?
	We note the Government's concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The G8 has called for an "immediate expansion" of the temporary international mechanism for the delivery of aid to the Palestinians. Will the Minister explain what is envisaged here? What impact is the situation in Gaza expected to have on the delivery of aid and what support is being given urgently to address the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip and to speed up the delivery of food and medicine?
	It is imperative that we find a route to the resumption of dialogue between all sides. In particular, it is crucial that the dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli political officials resumes as soon as possible and that there is a return to negotiations on the basis of a two-state solution, as the Minister said.
	In Lebanon, it is imperative that resolution 1559 be enforced, above all in respect of the disbanding and disarmament of all militias, including Hezbollah. What steps will be taken to achieve that and to reinforce the authority of the Lebanese Government in the south of the country? I understand that, later this week, the Government intend to proscribe the military wing of Hezbollah. Will the Minister confirm that that will take place and whether the Government have considered proscribing the political arm of Hezbollah as well?
	The middle east is an issue of the utmost importance to international peace and security. The current crisis is likely to have an impact well beyond Lebanon and Gaza. We ought to be very careful that the conflict raging in the middle east does not adversely affect our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and our military presence in Iraq, particularly in the south where Iranian influence remains considerable.
	In the last two or three months, we have had a series of debates in Westminster Hall about various aspects of the middle east: Iran's nuclear programme, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, global terrorism and Israel. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House pressed the Government to hold a debate on the middle east in Government time to explain Government policy on the middle east across the board. I urge the Government to reflect on that and to take urgent action.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is difficult to see with whom Israel is supposed to negotiate. The conflict has not arisen as a consequence of one nation invading another. It is a consequence of Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation, with its militias in the south, Fatah with its militias, and Hamas with its militias, killing and kidnapping the soldiers of a sovereign state. In those circumstances, it is difficult to negotiate and impossible to set the rules of engagement. Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that we must impress on the Israelis the international rules of conflict. When civilians are killed and the terrible phrase "collateral damage" is used to describe what is seen as a legitimate attack, the impression given across the middle east and the world is not a good one. I am sure that the Israelis must have got that message, but we will continue togive it.

John Gummer: While totally condemning the terrorist activities of Hamas and Hezbollah, it is important that Israel's response should not only be proportionate but seen to be proportionate. In so far as it is disproportionate, it leads people outside to use the phrase,
	"A plague o' both your houses!"
	and it looks like the same kind of terrorism to which it is meant to respond. Will the Government assure the House that they are putting all pressure on the United States, which, after all, is the key to a solution, to be insistent that Israel act proportionately, in her interests as well as those of the whole world?

Julian Brazier: It was incredibly touching on a visit to Beirut in April to see how much progress has been made in rebuilding the state after the ejection of the Syrians. Does the Minister accept that the Beirut Government face exactly the same problems in trying to disarm Hezbollah that the Government whom we support in Baghdad have with militias there? For Israel to trash the state of Lebanon will do nothing at all for Israel's long-term security. The target needs to be Hezbollah, not civilians or Lebanese infrastructure.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) about ministerial non-answers, you will remember the advice that you gave me a few days ago in relation to a question that I had asked the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked whether he was informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Chancellor's proposed announcement on the future of Trident before the Chancellor made his Mansion house speech. The answer was:
	"I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues."—[ Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1107W.]
	You advised that I should table another question. In pursuance of your advice, I did so, asking whether in the course of those regular discussions the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the Secretary of State for Defence of the content relating to the future of Trident in the Chancellor's Mansion house speech before that speech was made. The reply was:
	"I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 5 July".—[ Official Report, 11 July 2006; Vol. 448,c. 1798W.]
	I wanted you to know the seriousness with which Ministers take your strictures on these matters.

Bridget Prentice: In the 2002 case of Fairchild, the House of Lords decided that someone who had contracted mesothelioma after wrongful exposure to asbestos at different times by more than one negligent employer could sue any of them, notwithstanding the fact that he could not prove which exposure had caused the disease, because all had materially contributed to the risk of his contracting that disease. Fairchild did not resolve whether liability should be joint and several, although it was presumed by the parties that that would be the rule, and that was the approach taken in practice. However, in Barker  v. Corus, the House of Lords decided that instead the damages were to be apportioned among those responsible for the wrongful exposure according to their relative degree of contribution to the chance of the person contracting the disease.
	That decision did not impose a limit on the damages that could be recovered from those responsible for the exposure to asbestos, but it did mean that the risk of any of them being insolvent and unable to pay the appropriate share would fall on the claimant, and that in practice the claimant would have to trace all relevant defendants, as far as that was possible, before liability could be apportioned and full compensation paid, or alternatively to issue multiple claims to recover damages on a piecemeal basis.

Bridget Prentice: No, I regret that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a figure for the sum that would be paid out. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes his statement, he may have more detail. I shall let him know that that would be of interest to the House. If he can, I am sure that he will try to give a figure, but it is difficult to make a direct statement on such matters. We know that there are between 1,000 and 2,000 cases per year, so we can work on that basis. The changes to the FSCS will improve the speed with which claimants receive compensation, but as I said earlier, they do not alter liability under the scheme.
	The provision also ensures that where a claimant has worked for a single employer who is now insolvent, but where only part of the period of exposure is covered by insurance, the claimant will be able to recover compensation from that insurer on the same basis as before the Barker case. That is a point that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised.
	Subsection (3) makes it clear that the provision does not affect the existing law on contributory negligence. Where a claimant has himself been responsible for part of the negligent exposure, it is right that that should be reflected in the level of compensation, but the provision will apply where, for example, a self-employed person has been negligently exposed by another while working as a contractor.
	Subsection (3) also makes it clear that a person who has paid full compensation can then seek a contribution to the damages awarded from other responsible persons under the Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978. In the light of concerns expressed by insurers, subsection (4) provides for contributions to be apportioned on the basis of the relative lengths of the periods of exposure for which each was responsible, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court thinks that another approach is more appropriate. That will ensure that defendants and insurers are able to recover contributions in as straightforward a way as possible. In that context, it is also important that the lawyers acting for claimants ensure that defendants are provided with a full employment and exposure history, and we are looking to see whether amendments to secondary legislation will help to achieve this. That, too, will help to speed up compensation.
	Subsections (7) to (11) confer a power on the Treasury to make regulations about the provision of compensation to a responsible person or an insurer of a responsible person in specified circumstances. These provisions are essential to help avoid delay in paying compensation, and will allow the current practice of employers and insurers making parallel payments with the FSCS to continue. As well as speeding up the claims process, they also produce a fair outcome for insurers.
	These subsections confer a power for the Treasury to make provisions that would facilitate speeding up the payment of claims to mesothelioma victims. These provisions would enable responsible persons to claim money back from the financial services compensation scheme, when another responsible person and their insurer are both insolvent and thus unable to pay their own share of compensation payments—again, that is related to the point that the hon. Member for Ryedale made. The power includes the ability to dealwith situations arising before the establishment of the FSCS that were, as I have said, settled under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975.
	The power will come into effect only when the Treasury has laid the necessary regulations and the Financial Services Authority has made the relevant rules. However, the rules permit the liable party to claim contributions in respect of claims dealt with from the date of Royal Assent—that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked about. The Treasury will make regulations, which will be laid as soon as practicable in the autumn, once Parliament reconvenes.
	The FSA is considering what changes may be needed to the FSCS to facilitate the swifter settlement of mesothelioma claims in accordance with the amendment of this Bill. The FSA proposes to take forward any changes as a matter of priority.

Bridget Prentice: I will discuss the retrospective aspects of the proposal shortly. The ABI has been helpful, and we have taken on board a number of issues that it has raised. We think that that method will be faster than setting up a board, which would require rules, regulations and appointments. We will be able to get compensation to people from the moment of Royal Assent, which employers and insurers will, where appropriate, be able to claim back. The system will be swifter and simpler for victims—the hon. Gentleman supports the new clause, and he knows that our main focus is getting compensation to victims as swiftly as possible.
	On retrospection, amendment No. 8 allows the provision to be retrospective, which means that it will apply to claims settled or determined on or after 3 May 2006—the date of the Barker judgment—and it allows parties to seek the variation of any such settlement or determination. It will also apply to cases that have not been concluded. We regard it as being of the utmost importance that all claimants affected by the Barker judgment can secure full compensation, including the parties to that case, the parties to the cases conjoined with that case and the parties to cases subsequently settled or determined on the apportionment basis proposed by Barker.
	I recognise that this is an exceptional step, but I believe that it is justified. I hope that it will have thefull support of this House given the exceptional circumstances and that it will not raise difficulties in relation to compliance with the European convention on human rights. There are number of reasons why that is the case, and I want to set them out.
	First, the degree of retrospection is strictly limited and will apply only to a very short period and a very few cases. It is my understanding that following Barker, the great majority of cases that were under way have been stayed pending clarification of the appropriate method of apportionment or in the light of the Government's announcement that they intended to introduce these amendments. I am grateful to the judiciary for waiting to hear exactly what we intended to do before they carried those cases through. In addition, those cases—and any that have currently not been concluded—will have commenced prior to Barker, so the expectation of both claimants and defendants will have been that joint and several liability would apply. We are therefore not interfering with the settled expectations of the parties to any of those proceedings.
	I believe that it would be unacceptable to provide assistance to future claimants but to leave a small group whose claims are unresolved, or have been concluded on the basis of Barker, to suffer the real disadvantages arising from that judgment—and I therefore believe that the provisions on retrospectivity are therefore proportionate and justifiable. We are talking about barely seven or eight weeks.

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, discussions are continuing. I understand that one of the suggestions on the table is for a system similar to that in Holland. I recently attended the  Insurance Times conference, at which representatives of the Association of British Insurers were giving their ideas on this matter. They felt that it would not be necessary to go as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but that if we were able to take the liability of the compensation scheme, of the Government and of the insurers, and to apportion claims on that basis, no additional funding would be required from the Government.
	That would have to be fully discussed. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree, however, that it would be good if we could take a large proportion of the legal costs out of the equation. I realise that he might find that difficult, given his background of 15 years with Thompsons and several years with other solicitors working in the claims field. One of the most important aspects of the claims is that of legal costs, and of how much money is being taken out of the system by claimants' solicitors and others.
	Does the Minister agree that it will be necessary to have appropriate rules of court to underpin the workings of new clause 13, and particularly of subsection (4)? Can she give us an assurance that Ministers will do all that they can to ensure that such rules are agreed and adopted as soon as possible? In particular, claimants will have to give enough information about their work history at an early stage to allow a fair apportionment of contributions to be made or agreed between defendants. The Minister said that that might be covered by secondary legislation, but does she agree that it will also be necessary for the rules committee of the High Court to make a decision on this matter? I believe that it will also be necessary for the committee to make a decision on the mechanisms necessary to effect the proposed simple system of apportionment taking into account the length of the period of exposure, but with a court discretion to adopt a different measure in exceptional cases. It would be helpful if Ministers were prepared to use their good offices to help with that process and to encourage a speedy outcome on the rules.
	While on technical matters, I also wonder whether it might be wise to explain, in proposed new subsection (5) to amendment No. 8, that only a claim affected by the section dealing with mesothelioma damages may be reopened. I also wonder whether the word "only" should appear after "settlement" in proposed new subsection (5)(c) and after "determination" in proposed new subsection (6)(c). The Minister might wish to consider these technical drafting points before the Bill is considered in the other place.
	I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Hendon(Mr. Dismore) that I do not support his new clause 7. I believe that it would be premature to accept such a proposal when the case of Rothwell  v. Chemical & Insulating Co. Ltd is about to go to the House of Lords. I also wonder how confident he is that the decision is the right one, as he must recognise that if every risk became a cause of action, with damages attached, that would mean a lot more work for claimants' lawyers. In the case of Rothwell, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, said:
	"Litigation is expensive and under our system the costs fall to be borne by the unsuccessful party. We consider it plainly desirable that claimants should not be permitted to pursue claims for trivial injuries. The fact that negligence has produced a physiological change that is neither visible nor symptomatic and which in no way impairs the bodily functions should not attract legal liability."
	He went on to say that the costs of litigation in cases such as those before us tend to be disproportionate to the damages recoverable.
	When the hon. Gentleman speaks to his new clause, which he has registered an interest in doing, I would be grateful to know whether he really believes that the mere risk of damage, which might be tiny, should be actionable. If so, why does he say that? I accept the Minister's view that the wording of his new clause is loose and unambiguous, and that it could allow a range of cases that do not currently attract liability to do so—for instance, those of pedestrians who have inhaled exhaust fumes, people who have eaten fatty food, home owners who have inhaled paint fumes while decorating, or those who have drunk a hot drink from a machine. All those people have taken risks. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that they should all attract compensation, regardless of whether they have suffered any injury, simply on the basis that they are worried about it.

Michael Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the new clause, which will restore fairness where there was unfairness following the Barker decision on 3 May. Put succinctly, it would say that where a person develops mesothelioma as a result of being subject to a risk, the person who exposed them to the risk is liable severally and jointly. That is how it should be. As the law stood, enormous unfairness was created, and the Minister explained how it could impact to reduce damages. For example, a widow who might have been able to trace only two of her husband's 10 employers would have received just 20 per cent. of the damages. Clearly, that was unfair.
	There will be a very large number of such cases, as there are 2,000 diagnoses a year. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to costs running to perhaps £30 billion. Looking to the future, however, means that there can be some certainty about the bills that the insurance industry, as well as Government, will face, and some preparation can be made.
	We know that the number of claims will be significant. It has been suggested that over 50 years there could be more than 180,000, because people have been exposed to asbestos since the 1950s. I think it fair to say that no employer could argue that he or she was not aware of the effects of asbestos from 1965 onwards. Clearly we must deal with the issue, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister has tackled it very fairly.
	In summing up the debate, my hon. Friend may tell us whether people will still be able to claim under the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 once the position before 3 May has been restored. The Government made it possible for them to do so at the time of the Fairchild case. People were queuing up behind that case, waiting to get their own cases into court. Given the seriousness of the disease from which they were suffering, the then Secretary of State introduced the potential for them to claim under the Act.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that my hon. Friend the Minister was thinking kindly. The Labour Government at that time was much more compassionate than, for instance, earlier Tory Governments. One example is the Tory Government's refusal in the early 1990s to implement a scheme for miners, although it would have saved the taxpayer an enormous amount of money.

Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we were arguing for such a scheme, his party in government took the view that the medical knowledge of the day could not differentiate damage done to the lungs by dust from damage done to them by smoking. That was what led to the unions taking the case to court. We found that medical evidence had been available to the Government, including the findings of a longitudinal study of miners in Belgium. The Government used it when they introduced the industrial injuries disablement scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but it was left to the present Government to implement this scheme. I agree that it might have been devised in a different way, but it was introduced in its present form, and it has brought a great deal of help to elderly miners suffering from COPD.
	My hon. Friend the Minister should also be congratulated on the retrospectivity in the new clause. Some cases will have been trapped between 3 May and the date of Royal Assent, and we need a mechanism for dealing with them. I believe that the Bill provides such a mechanism. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, there may well be cases in which the employer or the insurance company cannot be traced and a claim must be made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Perhaps we can try to ensure that almost the full value of a claim can be obtained.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the Minister's discussions about the type of scheme that would be introduced. I have always been a scheme man for these kinds of cases. I hope that we will look at embracing the total number of mesothelioma cases and include in the scheme, for example, members of households who have been exposed to the fibre brought home on a worker's clothes. People in that position cannot claim industrial injuries disablement benefit. That may be another area that we need to look at when we get the Green Paper on industrial injuries. However, overall, the new clause is good. It makes the Bill a substantial measure and I congratulate the Minister on it.

Andrew Dismore: I do not agree that my new clause would have that effect. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that MMR cases have been litigated ad extenso for some considerable time without great success. I dealt with his other points in my earlier intervention.
	The provision is important because many cases result in fatality, as has been said, so if we can resolve the pleural plaques issue early, those fatal cases could be resolved quickly, too. As a consequence of the cases I mentioned, there has been a huge windfall for the insurance industry but a great loss for those who suffered from the negligence of their employers.
	The proper basis for an award in respect of pleural plaques is straightforward. We should have to show initial exposure to asbestos, coupled with ingestion, followed by permanent penetration of the chest by asbestos fibres—as happens with pleural plaques—that remained as a catalyst for future harm causing physiological damage, creating the risk of a future disease that can be assessed and engendering suffering in the form of anxiety. Putting all those things together gives us something that is rather more than an insignificant injury, and it should be compensatable.
	All the policy issues point in the same direction, too. The existence of pleural plaques requires that a person is exposed to asbestos in the first place. The large number of potential victims indicates that a significant section of society was unprotected, notwithstanding the legislation that was supposed to help at the time. This is not a case of employers being retrospectively made responsible for something for which they could not plan. The economic needs of employers have to be placed in the context of their obligations to society as a whole. There are no floodgates to be opened, because, until January this year, such claims had existedfor more than 20 years without the courts being overwhelmed by litigation. The insurance industry has known of the problem—as has industry itself—for a long while and has had plenty of time to make provision for the potential cost of claims.
	To accept that organic change—which is what pleural plaques amounts to—is actionable is not to lower the burden of proof, because it will still be for the claimant to show that exposure was the fault of the employer. To accept the defendants' arguments sends out the wrong signals: to employers about the need to take care; to the insurers about their tactical use of the justice system, as in the Grieves and Barker cases; and, more important, to the general public about the ability of the courts to deal with problems that they have been handling for 20 years without ever having been doubted. If we are concerned about certainty in the law, could there be a more important example than this one? We have to find the right balance between claimants and defendants and, as a consequence of that Court of Appeal judgment, the present balance in relation to pleural plaques is woefully wrong.
	My second new clause deals with the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, she gave the arguments that I was expecting. She referred to the debates in 1987 about retrospectivity. I remember them well, because I was lobbying for retrospectivity at the time, although not so much in the context of today's debate. In 1987, the explosion of asbestos litigation had not really occurred; cases were just starting to come through, but not in the great volume that we see at present, and certainly not in relation to the problems of service personnel.
	The argument about limitation was primarily to do with ordinary accident claims where the limitation period would have been three years. If my new clause were accepted and implemented, it would not affect those cases, because they would be caught by the limitation period, which has long expired, post-1987. Furthermore, the provision does not deal with accidents; it is limited to disease, with particular reference to asbestos.
	My hon. Friend referred to the 2001 review. I remember lobbying the Ministry of Defence about that and listening to its rather spurious arguments that the benefits available through the war pensions scheme were equivalent to common law benefits if calculated over time. I am sorry to say that the MOD was not prepared to put those calculations to an actuarial assessment to find out who was right—it or me. I am pretty sure that I was right.
	My hon. Friend was correct in saying that the problem arises from section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and its replacement by the provisions of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which repealed it in large part. The best illustration of the problem is the 1988 case of Quinn  v. the Ministry of Defence, where the claimant, during his service in the Royal Navy, had stripped asbestos insulation from boilers and pipes that caused both pleural thickening and mesothelioma. The Court of Appeal held that the Crown had immunity from litigation due to the 1947 Act, because the exposure to asbestos took place before 1987, even though the symptoms did not manifest themselves until long after. That is the basic problem with which we are grappling in relation to asbestos. We are trying to put right problems created by the law as it stood in the past and by exposure to diseases and hazards long ago.
	The difficulty is that that serviceman, like many others, was exposed during his service—for some of them it was during their national service—especially in the Royal Navy but in other branches of the forces, too, long before the 1987 Act was amended. Years later, they find that they have a medical condition, yet they have no legal redress whatever. That is a manifest injustice, which is made even more unjust by the sort of cases that I used to deal with on behalf of civilians who had worked in MOD dockyards side by side with servicemen stripping, repairing or refurbishing ships. The civilian was entitled to bring a claim for damages and obtain £150,000, or whatever the amount happened to be, as compensation for mesothelioma, yet the person at his side, who had done exactly the same job but happened to be wearing the Queen's uniform, could not receive compensation. That is not fair or right, which is why I passionately believe that we must accept the proposals that I have promoted today.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will ask the MOD to reconsider its position. It is grossly unfair that people exposed to exactly the same hazard are treated so differently due to a mistake made in 1987 when people did not realise the problems that would occur 20 years later.

David Howarth: I remind the House of the interest I declared on Second Reading, which is that I occasionally receive a royalty or two from books I wrote or to which I contributed on these subjects.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I want to raise a point about the drafting of new clause 13 that may have effects that the Government do not intend. I ask them to consider my points before the Bill goes back to the House of Lords.
	The problem is that the Barker case was about two different issues. The first related to the Fairchild rule, which was a relaxation of the rules of causation in favour of claimants, and whether it would extend to cases where part of the exposure to asbestos had come not from an employer but from a period of self-employment by the claimant. The second issue has caused the most difficulty: whether the apportionment of damages should be made on the basis of the traditional rule of joint and several liability or a new rule of proportionate several liability.
	The problem in Barker was that three of the Law Lords decided the first issue, the extension of the Fairchild rule, in favour of the claimant, but the second issue—switching to proportionate several liability—in favour of the defendant. More to the point, the Law Lords linked those two decisions; they come as a package deal. I will read from the speech by Baroness Hale of Richmond in the House of Lords, which makes the point very clearly. In paragraph 128, she says:
	"One way of explaining Fairchild is that all were in breach of duty and one of them must be guilty, so that it made sense that all should be liable. That rationale does not apply, or certainly not with the same force, if there are other, non-tortious causers in the frame. But if the tortious exposers are only liable in proportion to their own contribution to the claimant's overall exposure to the risk of harm, then the problem does not arise."
	Why is that a problem? It is a problem because, given that those two issues were decided together as a package deal, if one of them is reversed, that raises the question of what the courts will do about the other. If we simply go back to joint and several liability, overturning the decision of the Law Lords on the issue of apportionment, the danger is that the Law Lords will say, "In that case, the claimant in Barker can't win at all. In fact, there is no liability to the claimant in Barker." If that happened, that claimant would be in a worse position after the Bill than before it. At present, under the Barker decision, at least they can get some damages if they can find one of the various employers who will pay—who is in a position to pay. However, after the Bill goes through, there will be no liability at all and they will get nothing.
	The question is whether the drafting of new clause 13 overcomes that problem. I fear that it does not.One argument might be that subsection (2)(a) of new clause 13 states:
	"irrespective of whether the victim was also exposed to asbestos—
	(i) other than by the responsible person, whether or not in circumstances in which another person has liability in tort".
	One could say that that covers the problem and that what is intended is to reverse only the pro-defendant aspect of Barker, not the pro-claimant aspect. The trouble with that interpretation of the new clause isthe way in which subsection (1) is written. I hope that the Minister will take this point on board. Subsection (1) states, "This section applies where" and then it lists four conditions. The fourth condition is:
	"the responsible person is liable in tort, by virtue of the exposure mentioned in paragraph (a)".
	In other words, not by virtue of the exposure mentioned in subsection (2). That means that subsection (1) comes first and one has to decide whether the claimant was liable in tort on the basis of the old law, or the law as the courts put it, not on the basis of the rest of the new clause. That gives rise to a serious problem in relation to what the effect of the new clause will be.
	There are two points for the Government to clear up. First, what exactly do they intend in relation to Barker? Do they intend to reverse only the aspect of Barker to do with joint and several liability and to leave alone the case's extension of the Fairchild rule, or do they intend to allow the courts to decide what to do about that other aspect? Secondly, if they do intend that both aspects of Barker should be decided in favour of the claimant, are they confident that the present drafting of the new clause achieves that aim? All I ask them to do is to consider those questions.

Frank Doran: I add my congratulations to those already given to the Minister by my colleagues. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and declare an interest as a member of the GMB union and an interest in relation to Thompsons solicitors, who were both involved in representingMrs. Barker. The point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is certainly of interest and needs to be studied, but I am not sure that the mechanics of the procedure in this House and the other place will allow it to be examined properly in the time scale available. However, I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
	I want to be brief, because we have had a full discussion and there has been full consideration. It is important that the Government responded so speedily and compassionately to the problems thrown up by the Barker case. Many previous speakers have mentioned the aspects of mesothelioma that create difficulties—the lack of warning and the speed with which the illness has fatal consequences. The speed is extremely important.
	My major point is that none of these matters would have come before the House had it not been for the work of the trade unions, who supported Mrs. Barker and the other pursuers who were involved in the cases being decided by the House of Lords. We are talking about ordinary people doing ordinary jobs who have been subjected to the various elements that caused their illnesses, but who are not in a position, because of the complexity of the issues that they face and the expense, to pursue such matters on their own behalf. The legal aid system is not as helpful as it once was in that respect. Trade unions support their members in this way not just in run-of-the-mill cases, but in difficult cases such as the Barker case and, previously the Fairchild case. People are supported by the trade union movement to open up the law, to probe it and to deal with these difficult issues. In this particular case, that has led to some difficulty for claimants.
	I raised an issue with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in relation to the problem that the Government face when, on the one hand, they represent the employer in many of these cases——as they do in the case that we are discussing, through the inheritance of the responsibilities of the British shipbuilding company—and, on the other hand, they have to respond quickly to the consequences of the decision. I am sure that he makes the point in all seriousness, but it is important that we on this side do not take it too seriously. If a Minister were faced with legal advice to say that the Fairchild decision makes the Government potentially liable for massive damages because it has fundamentally changed some of the principles of liability, it would be negligent of Government in those circumstances not to have tested the situation. I am sure that any Minister faced with that legal advice would be left with virtually no alternative but to follow it. From the outside, it looks daft and a waste of public resources, but, in any circumstances, anyone with any knowledge of what happens in government would know that that is not the case. It is a course that had to be pursued.
	I welcome the extension of the legislation to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is in recess and has been for the past 10 days or so, so it would not have been possible to legislate there. It is important that, as part of the devolution settlement, we have the process known as the Sewel motion to allow those important decisions to be taken for the whole of the UK. In Scotland, the senior court in civil cases is the court of the House of Lords, so the judgment in Barker will apply in Scotland as much as it applies in England and Wales. That aspect is extremely important.
	New clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, is a distraction. The immediate priority is dealing with the consequences of the Barker case. Discussions are going on that might lead to a scheme for arbitration, but we will have time to reflect on that in the future. The urgent priority is the Barker decision, so I hope that the Government will not be distracted from that.

John McFall: I support new clause 13 and endorse the actions that have been taken since the House of Lords judgment in the Barker case, which caused a lot of turmoil in my constituency, as it no doubt did in others. Clydebank, which is in my constituency, is the proud home of shipbuilding, with the Queens and other ships being built there. However, a consequence of that is that we have the highest incidence of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases in the United Kingdom. The judgment is thus crucial to the best interests of many of my constituents.
	We have come a long way since Tuesday 13 June, when a Westminster Hall debate was secured under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan). At that time, we asked the Government what they were going to do. Since then, there has been pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who has done a tremendous job. The Prime Minister himself received a delegation of Members of Parliament to ensure that there could be a coherent Government approach.
	The Minister has also been involved. On Thursday29 June, which was the day on which the Scottish Parliament got up, it was not clear that there would be co-ordination between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. If an agreement had not been secured, the Scottish Parliament would have needed to legislate in September and Scotland would have been a year behind the rest of the United Kingdom. During Prime Minister's questions that week, I was told that there was only a forlorn hope. I also spoke to the Minister, and I must put it on record that she did a tremendous job, along with the staff in her Department, to ensure that we achieved co-ordination. The Scottish Parliament thus gave this Parliament the right to legislate on its behalf about mesothelioma.
	I mentioned the fact that Clydebank has the highest incidence of the disease. As several hon. Members have said, there were about 153 incidences of the disease in 1965, but we are now getting to the stage at which there are nearly 2,000 incidences a year. The number will peak at between 2,000 and 2,050 a year by 2015. The disease will be with us for a long time yet, so it is important that we get the situation right.
	The Clydebank asbestos group, under the chairmanship of Bob Dickie, West Dunbartonshire council, under its leader, Councillor Andy White, and my colleague Des McNulty MSP are working along with us in my constituency. Indeed, Des McNulty put a Bill before the Scottish Parliament in case things did not go so well between the Scottish and UK Parliaments. However, I know that he and his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are delighted that an agreement has been secured.
	One or two issues remain to be addressed. The situation in which a wife contracts the disease because of washing her husband's apparel has been mentioned. A woman who was one of my close friends died several months ago as a result of asbestosis. The question of retrospectivity is thus important.
	We must also consider legal fees. A constituent who visited my surgery on Friday said that although he had been granted compensation of £10,000, his lawyers had written to him to say that they were deducting £1,450 at the moment from an interim award, which would leave him with £235. The lawyers said that he would get the £10,000, but that that would require going back to court and would take a further year. As a result of going back to court, further moneys will come off my constituent's compensation. He said to me, "The quality of my life is inadequate at the moment, so what will it be like in a year's time?" Speed is of the essence, so I urge the Minister to take account of that.
	My colleagues have mentioned a no-fault compensation scheme. I am happy for such a scheme to be considered. However, it has been put to me that compensation could be greater in several instances if people took their own cases to court through lawyers. If that is true and the no-fault compensation scheme has the rider that people can still take their cases to court, such a scheme would satisfy both those who want to pursue their cases individually and those who want speed.
	May I mention to the Minister an issue that my constituents have brought to me? An individual who came to see me said, "John, I worked in the John Brown shipyard,"—a famous yard—"for many years in the 1960s and 1970s, but every few weeks I got a notice telling me that someone or other was my employer." In other words, the work was subcontracted, so that an individual would not be able to say that he was working for John Brown's when he contracted the disease. We must thus address the situation of workers who were nominally working in a yard for an employer who was responsible for them, but were, in fact, working for a subcontractor. I do not know whether such a situation has been raised with the Minister before, but if it has not, I would like it to be included as part of the deliberations.
	I congratulated the Minister earlier, so I will not do so again. I want a good, efficient scheme.

David Anderson: May I add my thanks to the Minister and congratulate her on coming forward with a speedy response? I raised the issue on the day that the Barker result came out, when I asked the Prime Minister what he could do to give comfort to people suffering from the disease. He said that he was not quite aware of the decision, but that he would do anything in his power that he could. That is exactly what we are considering today.
	The most common question that I have been asked since becoming a Member 14 months ago is, "Why on earth do you want to do that?" To be honest, events such as this make me know that I made the right decision in coming here. I am proud of what we are doing across the House to help people's day-to-day living.
	The people whom we are talking about should never have been exposed to asbestos in the first place. Although the disease became recognised in 1965, people had known for at least 70 years before that time that asbestos was a substance that should not be messed about with or worked with. That long history shows that asbestos should have stopped being used years ago.
	Mesothelioma first came to my attention when a member of my trade union passed out in a bar. That is not uncommon in our area, but it is usually due to alcoholism, rather than mesothelioma. The guy did not know what was wrong with him. He had thought nothing of riding 50 miles a day on his bike and was much fitter than most of his colleagues. He had contracted the disease at least 30 years before while he was working in the shipyards. One fibre, which had probably lain there for those 30 years, came back to claim his life in nine months. Through the work of his widow and other supportive groups in the north-east as part of an organisation called the Chris Knighton mesothelioma research fund, we have managed to raise something like £100,000 to undertake research on trying to combat the disease. I suggest that we should support such groups and give them what help we can from the health service to try to combat the disease, or at least ameliorate its effects.
	I want to be clear on my last point. I have read the explanatory note that the Minister has given us today—I thank her for that. It says that subsections (7) to (11) of new clause 13 will mean that responsible persons will be able to claim money back when a liable employer and insurer are both insolvent. Can the Minister help me with the case of my constituent,Mr. Siddoway? He cannot get recompense because his employer and insurer have not only become insolvent, but effectively disappeared off the face of the earth. Will I be able to tell him anything tonight to give him some reassurance that the Bill might help him?

Bridget Prentice: This has been a very good, purposeful debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their support for new clause 13 and I thank in particular my hon. Friends for their positive, kind words, although I repeat that without their campaigning we would not be in this position. I am grateful to them for raising the issue not just recently but over a long period of time, and I am glad that this Government have been able to respond to them.
	On the question whether the ABI scheme and creation of a board would offer a quicker solution, the whole point of the legislation is to tackle the effects of Barker as quickly as possible. That is why we and key stakeholders such as the ABI are looking at other ways to improve how cases are dealt with. Before the recess, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement in the House on certain relevant issues, and I am very conscious of the fact that we want to deal with the matter speedily.
	The issue of costs has been raised tonight. As several hon. Members have pointed out, between 1,000 and 2,000 people a year are diagnosed, to whom average compensation of £100,000 is awarded. That is equivalent to between £100 million and £200 million in compensation. We estimate that the number of cases will rise to about 2,500 by 2015 and then gradually reduce until 2050. It might reassure Opposition Members if I said that, because people expected Fairchild to be in some ways reinforced by the Barker decision, the money is not new money. Barker affected not the level of damages but simply how they should be paid and apportioned. Therefore, we should not be overly concerned about any changes.
	In the Barker case, the House of Lords did not make any ruling on costs—possibly because such costs had not been decided. The cases were to be sent back to the law courts for apportionment. Therefore, we do not really know what the costs would have been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) said, Miss Barker's case was supported by the GMB and therefore the fact that it was brought in her name does not necessarily mean that costs would be paid by her. However, if she were to pay costs, she would be able to apply to vary the order and how damages should be apportioned, although that might not go back to court anyway because it is very likely that the parties would settle on the basis of the legislation that I hope we shall shortly pass.
	I was asked whether the rules of court would have to underpin subsection (4). The civil procedure rule committee will be asked to consider the employment exposure history of a claimant. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). However, as I have said, the apportionment of contributions is already established in the presumption in the clause, and that should enable insurers to resolve those issues without further court involvement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Newclause 2— Offence of contravening specified conditions—
	'(1) A person commits an offence if he contravenes the specified conditions in section 5 and any Code of Conduct issued in connection with such conditions.
	(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—
	(a) on conviction on indictment—
	(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years,
	(ii) to a fine, or
	(iii) to both; or
	(b) on summary conviction—
	(i) to imprisonment of a term not exceeding 51 weeks,
	(ii) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
	(iii) to both,
	(3) An offence under this section is "an offence committed under this Part" for the purposes of section 7.'.
	New clause 5— Injunction restraining exempt person—
	'(1) The Regulator may apply to the court for an injunction restraining an exempt person from providing regulated claims management services if he is in contravention of the specified conditions in section 5 or any connected Code of Conduct.
	(2) In subsection (1) "the court" means the High Court or a county court.'.
	New clause 10— Disapplication of Part 2—
	'The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall not apply to legal services offered or arranged by Trades Unions for the benefit of their members or members' families.'.
	New clause 11— Compensation for coalminers—
	'(1) Where costs have been paid by the Government under the schedules of any prescribed claims handling agreement, any additional monies levied from individual claimants shall be repaid immediately by the receiving agent to the claimant.
	(2) For the purposes of this section—
	"claims handling agreement" means—
	(a) the 1999 agreement between the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and the Government on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,(b) the 1999 agreement between Vendside Ltd and the Government on vibration white finger, and(c) the 1999 agreements on vibration white finger and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between the claimants' solicitors group and the Government;
	"additional monies" includes membership fees, money in lieu of membership fees, marketing fees or other related charges;
	"receiving agent" means the solicitor or claims handler who received monies from the individual claimant.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
	Amendment No. 15, in clause 14, page 9, line 8, at end insert—
	'(6) The first order made under section 5 may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(6A) An order under section 5 which has the effect of removing or restricting an exemption from section 3(1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 9, in clause 14, leave out 'an' and insert 'any other'.
	Amendment No. 5, in the schedule, page 12, line 13, at end insert—
	'(1A) A code of practice issued under subsection (1) shall include details of the advertising standards for providers of claims management services.'.

Oliver Heald: New clause 1 would ensure a statutory basis for the conditions in clause 5, so that a decision to exempt an individual or body from the regulation to which claims farmers are subject would have statutory form. The amendments give teeth to the code of conduct that the Minister proposes for those who are exempt from regulation.
	I agree that some bodies need to be exempted from part 2, and it is right that organisations that are covered by other regulators—for example, insurance companies, insurance brokers and their agents are covered by the Financial Services Authority—should be exempted, because there is no point in having duplicate regulations for one body. However, we should ensure that everyone plays by the same rules and is subject to similar standards. We need a clear set of conditions to follow when deciding on the issue of exemption; it should not just be the say-so of the Secretary of State.
	In January, in a written answer, the Under-Secretary confirmed—and Baroness Ashton said the same—that the Government intend to exempt trade unions by means of secondary legislation. The Constitutional Affairs Committee criticised that decision in its report, "Compensation culture". It said that it did not "see any benefit" in exempting trade unions, and I agree, but the Minister has said that the Government will not go down the route of regulating trade unions. There will be a different system for them—a code of conduct, which will be voluntary.
	I accept that trade unions play an important part in society and that they have, like many who manage claims, helped numerous people to obtain the justice that they deserve. However, like some claims management organisations, some trade unions have abused their clients' trust for their personal gain. I am not alonein thinking that. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has referred to his constituent, Mrs. Beckett, who approached Raleys, a firm of solicitors. She was told:
	"'NUM funding is available only through this firm'".
	Mrs. Beckett had nothing to do with the National Union of Mineworkers. She had not gone through the NUM; she just contacted Raleys using the Yellow Pages. As we heard from the hon. Gentleman, she was told:
	"'You are of course at liberty to explore other types of funding arrangements, however we cannot guarantee that they will protect you from the need to pay any expenses or from the amount that your solicitor may recover from your compensation'"—
	to which the hon. Gentleman said, "Not true!" He referred to another of his constituents, Mr. Dunstan, who was told:
	"'If you do not wish to take up the option of Union backing then it will be necessary for us to consider alternative funding arrangements. If you are not eligible for legal aid then it will be necessary to discuss funding your case by either private funding or through a conditional fee agreement.'"—[ Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c.482.]
	We should not forget the other examples provided by the hon. Gentleman, who concluded that they showed that the scandal of the miners' compensation continues.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) was explicit about the problem. He agreed with me:
	"The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked whether trade unions should be covered by the Bill if they act as claims handlers. I believe wholeheartedly that they should be." —[ Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c.495.]
	Last November,  The Times published an article that exposed the deceptive and disingenuous actions of the NUM and stated that
	"elderly men suffering from chest diseases and a crippling hand condition were advised to allow the National Union of Mineworkers to fund their legal claims in return for paying part of their eventual compensation to the Union. But what the miners were never told was that in reality, the Government—and not the union—was paying the legal bills for successful claims."

John Gummer: The regulations from which the trade unions are exempt are not onerous, but they are necessary to protect the public and the individuals concerned. Why shouldthe regulations not apply to trade unions, if they are suitable for everyone else?

John Mann: When reading the code of conduct, it is always good to put in the words "Union of Democratic Mineworkers/Vendside" instead of "union" and see how it reads. The hon. Gentleman said that the regulator would be the TUC andMr. Brendan Barber. In the draft code that I have seen, far from the TUC regulating, unions such as the Union of Democratic Mineworkers would appoint or even pay their own self-regulator.

John Mann: If one were always the optimist, one would say that signing that agreement led directly to the Compensation Bill, so there is some light at the end of the tunnel—except perhaps if one is running Vendside. I would certainly expect my constituents to bring in many claims. Just as a policy decision allowed the backdating to 1999 of complaints for double charging against solicitors under the miners' scheme and made complaints admissible to the Law Society, so it is important to clarify whether the regulator, in setting a regime for claims handling, would be expected to take cognisance of comparable bodies—in this case, the Law Society. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that.
	The Vendside case is particularly important. About 15 to 20 per cent. of the people involved, because of the agreement that the Government signed, never went through a solicitor. Uniquely, the claims handler, Vendside, took the claims forward, so the only remedy has been civil law. There has been no Law Society remedy, even though it was beginning to work very satisfactorily for all other cases. I do not envisage further civil actions against anyone other than the UDM and Vendside, but 15 to 20 per cent. of people did not have access to justice or consumer rights.
	The Bill becoming an Act is fundamental to allow those 20,000 to 30,000 people the same access to justice and consumer rights as would have applied if their cases had been handed to a solicitor. As far as cases dealt with by Moss, Ashton Morton Slack and Beresford solicitors are concerned, no one can move in my office for all the cheques arriving from companies to pay my constituents who had paid the Vendside fee in circumstances where it was wrongly and deliberately suggested to them in writing that the UDM was paying costs of their claims. Those people are now getting justice and I want the Bill to provide an exact parallel for the minority of people whose consumer rights have been denied and who have had only the remedy of civil action.
	Where an organisation is more than happy to spend large amounts of money on expensive lawyers, it is important to remember the small man or woman. We may be talking about a retired miner in his 80s or a miner's widow in her 90s who have wrongly had money deducted and who have to fight against the might of Vendside, with all the money it acquired. Vendside is quite happy to throw its money away to try to stop the individual. What Vendside actually did—following legal advice, I suspect, but who knows; perhaps it will write and tell us—is change the forms. In fact, the forms changed five times; I have seen five variations. At some stage, it became a fee in lieu of membership.
	That is where the question of membership is fundamental. My constituents who were not members of the UDM, who worked in another trade or had retired or who were not classified legally as members got stung in different ways, but the principle is the same. The point was to put money into that organisation for nothing. The Bill must immediately resolve that sort of consumer complaint and allow people a remedy so that they can pursue justice for themselves.
	Mining cases are not the only ones. We are talking theoreticals, but this is not an absolutely theoretical, because a political party—the British National party—has attempted to jump on the back of industrial injury claims. In this case, we are talking about ceramic industry claims from the Potteries. Other hon. Members may have more up-to-date information than I have, but I understand that there is an intention to form a trade union. Whether it gets certified is out of our hands, because it will be determined by a certification officer. It is probably theoretically possible for the BNP to set up a trade union that could be certified. The BNP attempted with Beresfords solicitors to take claims and act as a claims handler in order to recruit through the union rather than straightforwardly to the BNP, as it had tried before. That is a real danger and we need to ensure that we do not fall into it. That is particularly the case in respect of a letter from Beresfords about what had happened in Committee. Beresfords immediately wrote to me to spell out that it had
	"formed no connection with the BNP at the time, we certainly had no intention of forming such connection in the future."
	That actually makes matters worse, because Beresfords had obviously been hoodwinked by the BNP: the BNP were advertising its name, and it did not even realise that that was happening, as it spells out in the letter. That could happen in the context of the BNP setting up a trade union and attempting to get it certified, so defining what are claims handlers and what are not is vital, as is defining membership.
	I also want to make some remarks about all the people who had money deducted in miners' compensation claims, because there are many of them. Tens of thousands of people have had money deducted—certainly more than 50,000 and, although it is hard to give an accurate estimate above that, there are probably many more. Let us take the example of my own constituents. I have already had money paid back by solicitors to more than 600 of them, and that number is increasing rapidly week in, week out. The list of solicitors who have been forced to pay back money—some, certain people would say, as a voluntary good-will gesture, others following Law Society adjudications—is phenomenally long. Almost 40 firms of solicitors have now had to pay back money.

John Mann: My hon. Friend is right. The reason for that is that many people fear that, when they sign a contract, it is legally binding. Some such people are taking on large firms of solicitors who directly deducted money for themselves—we are not talking about third parties. Let me give some examples of those who directly deducted money for themselves: Thompsons solicitors took £285 from one of my constituents, and Richmonds solicitors took £500 from another. There is a whole range of others: Irwin Mitchell deducted £289. Those are major firms of solicitors. Many smaller firms of solicitors also stumbled into this, such as Frank Allen Pennington, Donne Mileham and Haddock, and Colemans. They were also deducting moneys, some for themselves, some for a third party such as other claims handlers, including PR and Associates, Union and General Services—which quickly went into liquidation, so it could not be pursued through the civil courts—and IDC. There is a plethora of such claims handlers.
	People have to go through a process to get their money back. I will give an example of how that works, because I have today responded on behalf of a constituent to the Law Society. The complaint was put in two years ago. No assessment is made of the literacy, illness or other vulnerabilities of such people. Some of the people I am representing are in their 90s. Some have good literacy, others have very limited literacy, and they get sent large wodges of documents. Some get visits at home from solicitors when they make a complaint; some had visits from the managing partner of solicitors. Some have been taken to hotels for meals to discuss their complaint with a managing partner. Some are rung up and told, "You are liable, because you have signed," and others get letters saying that. Those are the kind of people who are complaining.
	The vast majority of those people have had no previous contact with solicitors. Many of them tell me that they regarded solicitors as people who they would need only if they were on the wrong side of the law, and they are therefore delighted to have had no contact with solicitors. They say to me time and again, "We have had no contact with solicitors before." Many of them are dealt with by their solicitors over the telephone rather than face to face, even for industrial hearing loss claims. Many are dealt with over a great distance, and the solicitors never see them—or see them only once.
	How are such people to know, other than by MPs campaigning on the matter, that they have a genuine complaint that can be addressed by the Law Society in getting their money back when it should never have been deducted in the first place because, in this great scheme, the Government paid the solicitors' fees? If they are getting £8,000 or £10,000 in compensation and a solicitor says, "The charge to you is £1,000", they might think that to pay £1,000 to get £10,000 sounds reasonable. It sounds reasonable to me, and I know that it sounds reasonable to my constituents, because no one told them that the Government, through the scheme, were paying all the costs. These are the sums in respect of some of the solicitors involved: for Thompsons, more than £100 million; for Rayleighs, more than£55 million. The total is more than £500 million and increasing. The sum in respect of Beresfords is£80 million, and more than £100 million in potential claims costs are still to come. Those are phenomenal sums of money, and only now are people realising that those solicitors were being so appropriately generously—so to speak—paid by the Government. That was the deal that was done, and I have no criticism, as things can go in different ways. What I criticise is the fact that my constituents have to go through me one at a time to get their money back. Even with the Law Society, things have to be done one at a time.
	Today, I dealt with a firm of solicitors called Wake Smith—again, one of the UDM solicitors. It is one of a small handful of firms that have failed to agree to pay people back. Only a few are still resisting, and Wake Smith is one of the worst. It puts standard responses in the post—20-page legal documents full of legalese that my constituents are meant to read and understand—and it keeps getting things wrong. In a case I addressed today, it gave a 20-page document about the UDM—defending the UDM and its right to take money, and then claiming that it had virtually no relationship with the UDM. In fact, the money in question had been deducted to IDC, but it had obviously just hit the computer button and printed that off; it had not given any care and attention to the fact that this was an individual complaint from a former client of theirs—a real person who had a consumer complaint.
	I shall give another example; it is a classic. In correspondence sent to one of my constituents, a paragraph has been added in bold. I read and responded to it this morning. This particular consumer complaint has been going on for two years. It is stated in bold that it should be dismissed because I had no appropriate authority from "him"—I stress that "him"—and that I had not provided any, but that the firm involved had a client satisfaction form from him that it claimed to enclose. It was not included in the papers, and although I have asked for a copy I suspect that I will not receive it, as this was a deceased claim from a widow; her husband died 20 years ago.
	That highlights the kind of people we are dealing with. They not only wrongly take the money—in this case for the UDM, and also, if Wake Smith is the firm involved, probably for Indiclaim as a marketing fee as well. A fee of perhaps about £500 would be paid to Indiclaim, and there would also be a fee that it has helped the UDM and Vendside to get. But when my constituent has the temerity to complain, Wake Smith claims that it has a client satisfaction letter from her husband who died 20 years ago and who has—strangely—failed to sign an authority from me to represent him. When that sort of thing is going on, I have to ask whether the Government should not insist on automatic repayment to those people. Taxpayers' money is going to the solicitors, so either the Government or my constituents and others have been fiddled. The double charging is straightforward—it is on top of Government fees. Either the Government should consider legal action to claw back the money from the solicitors and use it to recompense the individuals or the law should be changed so that the solicitors—and Vendside Ltd, which are claims handlers—are automatically forced to repay. That is natural justice.

Simon Hughes: We need to discuss that balance. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Looking at this from the point of view of the consumers of the service, if they have been conned, they have been conned; it does not matter whether they are the company's only victim or not. This matter would depend on whether the definition involved the value of the service offered or the cost of the service, as they might be different. If the cost of the service were only 10 quid, there could be quite a lot of 10 quids, which would soon add up. I hope that the Minister will address this issue.
	The other amendment to which I have added my name is amendment No. 5, which has also been tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. This is a linked amendment, which the hon. Gentleman addressed in passing in his introductory speech. It proposes that:
	"A code of practice issued under subsection (1) shall include details of the advertising standards for providers of claims management services."
	One of the concerns that has been aired in the debate is the need for clear regulation of the advertising involved, whether it is advertising on hoardings or in the local paper, or the kind that comes through the letterbox or is given away outside shopping centres or railway stations to try to get people to buy the services on offer. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that our proposal will be accepted.
	May I make a formal request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if—as I hope and expect—the Government are willing to accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16, we might have a chance to vote on them before Third Reading at 9 o'clock? I want to flag up that request now, if I may. Those amendments come from amendments that I tabled in Committee, on which the Minister said that she would reflect, and they involve a simple proposal.
	Clause 5 sets out the procedures for providing exemptions, and, at the moment, they allow only for the use of the negative resolution procedure in the House. So the Government could lay regulations, and only if we prayed against them would there be the opportunity for a debate and a vote on them. The procedures governing exemptions are controversial, in this House and elsewhere, and they are important in that they could be used to exempt trade unions, either generally or in part, or any other group of organisations. For that reason, I proposed in Committee that there must be an automatic debate in both Houses of Parliament on any proposed exemptions. That would be the time to discuss whether trade unions should be included or excluded. We have had a long discussion on that issue tonight, to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has contributed at some length, as well as other hon. Members. The history has not been a glorious one, and the wise thing for us to do now would be to ensure that we had to return to the issue. If the Government were to go ahead with their proposal to exempt trade unions as claims management organisations as regulated by the Bill—the opposite of what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is proposing—the House should be able to debate and vote on the matter.

Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my joining him in his plea that we should be allowed to vote on these amendments, if necessary, at the appropriate time?

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I am sure that you have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The proposition, which is a result of discussions with the Minister and her officials—for which I am grateful—is that the first time that an order is made under clause 5, we should have a debate and vote on it in both Houses, and that we should also debate and vote on any subsequent order that would have the effect of removing or restricting an exemption.
	Some very dubious practice has clearly been applied in relation to certain claims. Although trade unions may logically have a strong case for being exempt when acting for their members, the wider concern is that they should be included, so as to prevent similar abuses from recurring. In any event, I hope that the Minister will agree that we should have the opportunity to vote on the amendments later.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has had plenty of time to make his point. I am going to try to make mine briefly.
	Generally, since the Access to Justice Act 1999 and conditional fee agreements were introduced, it has been possible to do without deductions. Occasionally, however, they are required, especially in test cases involving group litigation, which are not party to parts of schemes but are often involved in major, complex and expensive litigation. Of course, deductions are nothing new. Under the civil legal aid scheme, before it was removed from personal injury cases, deductions were made, for instance, for disbursements not recovered or payments in. After-the-event insurance schemes that operate now still apply deductions in exactly the same way.
	Regulating trade union schemes does not affect the dodgy law firms that we have heard about or the claims handling company, as those would be caught under the new arrangements anyway.
	In relation to the definition of members, we should also take into account that many trade union schemes extend to members' families. I remember the debate in my old law firm in the 1980s about whether we could afford to offer such a scheme to trade unions for the benefit of members' families, as was eventually provided. Trade unions are already regulated under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, unlike claims handlers, who are not. The certification officer has a right and a duty to inspect trade unions' accounts. Details of trade unions' officers have to be filed, and any complaints over breach of rules, including over legal services, can be investigated by the certification officer.
	Of course, the trade union rule book, of which union legal schemes form part, is a binding contract between the member and the trade union and can be independently enforced through the courts if necessary. Unlike claims' handlers, trade unions have their own internal appeals and complaints systems, which can include whether cases are being turned down. Trade unions do not encourage their law firms to turn cases down but to fight on, unlike claims handlers. They also use specialist law firms, which generally know what they are doing.
	The only beneficiary of regulation will be the insurance industry because trade union legal systems will not operate as effectively as they have done over decades to provide justice for trade union members. I very much hope that the Government will see sense, as they seem to be doing, and accept that trade unions have generally provided an excellent service for a long time. We should not allow one bad experience, albeit involving a lot of people, to affect the whole system of trade union legal support.

John Gummer: I declare an interest as the independent chairman of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, which has an interest in the Bill but not this part of it. The first Bill that I tried to put through the House, nearly 30 years ago, was opposed by solicitors because they said that they needed none of the regulation that I was suggesting for them. The issue involved was that of fake directories where solicitors used to write letters to frighten people into paying bills that they had no duty to pay and had not incurred. I remember the anger and opprobrium cast at me by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and his then hon. Friend who is now in the other place, Lord Clinton-Davis, when I suggested that some solicitors might need such controls.
	I therefore have a long history of not being entirely enthusiastic about solicitors and their being unregulated by people outside. I agree with many of the elements of the Bill and consider it a valuable contribution in many ways. I therefore hope that it will not be taken amiss if I suggest that there is a problem in relation to trade unions that has been misunderstood by many.
	First, trade unions and their members, as defined in all our minds, come under a category that is already subject to regulation. We should not regulate—or try to do the same thing—twice, as that is both otiose and annoying. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has made an important point. Some aspects of the way in which the exemption is to work do not give adequate protection to the consumer.
	I say to the Minister that it is important for the Government to be seen to be even-handed when dealing with trade unions. I am sure that she is trying to be so, but perception is vital in relation to that issue. If she is not to be thought to be partial, she must be seen to treat trade unions in the same way as she might treat other organisations. Without straying outside the debate, the Government ought to strive not to be seen to be swayed in a partial manner. I therefore ask her to reconsider her approach so far.
	We must protect even members of trade unions by ensuring that the code of practice is—at least in the limited way suggested by my hon. Friend—justiciable. If the Minister thinks that it is important to have a code of practice, it is manifestly true that it ought to be able to be enforced. To have a code of practice that cannot be enforced is merely a fig leaf and is subject to the likelihood that people outside here will feel that the Government are being partial.
	Secondly, I thought that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) put the argument clearly, and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was a bit hard when he said that he went on. Actually, he did not repeat himself once, and everything that he said was of interest to this House, which was not the case with the shorter speech of the hon. Member for Hendon. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw's point was not contraryto trade unions—he was saying that there are circumstances in which the protection of members, or those called members, of trade unions, was not sufficient, and that people were misled and dealt with unacceptably. It was right to bring that to the House's attention. As it came from a Member who has such a history of support for the trade unions, it seemed to me that it was not properly treated by those who suggested that he was being antagonistic to trade unions. What he was saying, and what I am saying, is that good trade unions deserve the support and protection of a properly written law that enables them to feel properly defended against the activities of those who bring trade unions' name into disrepute.
	Not only do we want to be assured about the meaning of "member", which is important, but that people who are embroiled in circumstances in which the trade union acts as a claims organiser—but not as a trade union—to someone who is not a trade unionist will not have their protection removed. That is all that we ask. As the Minister has refused to include trade unions within the definition—for reasons that, I think, are comprehensible—the easiest solution is to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. Those amendments are not meant in any way as antagonistic to trade unions but as protection for the customer. That is perfectly reasonable.
	There seems to be a cross-party view on this matter. It arises from a desire to ensure that people outside perceive the Bill to be even-handed, a desire to protect every one of Her Majesty's subjects so that they all have equal rights of protection, and above all a desire to make certain that decent trade unions are not besmirched by the activities of what have turned out to be two trade unions in particular circumstances. I should have thought that those were interests common to us all, and if the Minister is unable to move in our direction, I believe that the Government will lay themselves open to the charge of partiality even if, deep down, that was not their reason for behaving in this way.

Kevan Jones: I have no problem with that. It is a good example of a trade union not just supporting its retired members, but doing sterling work in supporting widows and others in the community. Unions should be congratulated on that, but alas, it is not what has happened in Durham. That is why it is important for the code of conduct to include a definition enabling trade unions to do the great work that my hon. Friend has described.
	There is also the issue of funding. Paragraph 2 of the draft code states
	"A Trade Union should give a member relevant information about the funding of their claim, including details of any fees payable by the member and any fees being received by the Trade Union in respect of the claim."
	That is fine, but if a fee is to be deducted, members should be told on what it will be spent. It is important to avoid misapprehension or, indeed, the lies that have been peddled in, for instance, the Durham NUM case. It was said that the fee was being deducted to fund the case when that was clearly not so.
	As has been said, in nine cases out of 10 trade unions provide the cheapest way for people to obtain justice in court when accidents have befallen them, but if there is a cheaper way, it should be explained to people so that they can decide what to do. I realise that nowadays, given conditional fee agreements and insurance, there is no reason why any trade union should charge individuals anything, but I think it vital to make clear to clients how cases are to be funded and what alternatives may exist.
	Paragraph 3 of the draft code of conduct deals with arrangements with third parties, and I must tell the Minister that I think it contains certain minefields. It seeks to deal with the relationship between a trade union and a third party, which may be a claims handling company. It also refers to solicitors. I think it important to explain to trade union members the exact relationship between a trade union member and a firm of solicitors, to avoid any misapprehension if a success fee, or other fee, is paid to the firm.
	I am surprised that Members who are advocates of trade unions, and great champions such as the hon. Member for Hendon, have not homed in on paragraph 4 of the draft code, which I think is a bit draconian for unions. It refers to the competence of employees and volunteers. I do not agree with the sentiment, but paragraph 4.2 states
	"A Trade Union should have in place an appropriate quality assurance process to monitor the quality of advice given to members."
	I think that that will impose on many trade unions an additional burden that they will not welcome.
	I accept that the volunteers to which the code refers should be trained, but people must recognise that a lot of people who give trade union advice, as lay members in workplaces elsewhere, may not be trained and their knowledge comes from many years of working in particular industries. Therefore, paragraph 4 needs to be tightened so that it is not too onerous for trade unions and does not debar some people who are doing very good jobs in workplaces from giving initial employment advice. In parts, the provision is quite draconian.

Kevan Jones: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. It is important that during the consultation trade unions think carefully about the consequences of that part of the code of conduct. It could put off branch secretaries and other trade union volunteers, who do a sterling job on behalf of their members, from giving "legal advice". In the worst case scenario, shop stewards will refuse or be afraid to give advice, so that matter needs clarifying.
	The last point in the code again tries to deal with the issue but goes halfway and does not answer a lot of the points. It is about complaints and redress. I am not clear, because there is no reference here, how the provision on complaints by trade union members links with the legislation in respect of certification officers. Clearly, as a trade union member—not an associate or other type of member such as I spoke about earlier—the individual member has the recourse of going to the certification officer. That needs to be welded into this part of the complaints and redress system. Otherwise, there could be a conflict between the code and existing trade union law that governs regulation of trade unions by the certification officer.
	Paragraph 5.2 says:
	"Where a complaint cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the member within a reasonable time, it should be referred to a third party for termination."
	There is no reference to who the third party would be, and there are no explanatory notes. I would be very resistant if the third party were to be, for example,the union's solicitors, if they were involved. It would have to be some independent body—perhaps the certification officer, as I have outlined.
	This is a good first stab at the code of conduct, but it needs to be updated and refined and some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I have raised need to be taken on board. However, it is better than bringing trade unions into the Bill; there is existing law to protect trade union members. It is odd that it is Labour Members who are arguing for less regulation and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and other Conservative Front Benchers who are arguing for more regulation. No doubt I will use that as a good example when I am being lecturedby Conservative Members to the effect that the Government are all about more regulation rather than less.
	What has been put forward by the Government isa compromise that will protect people. More importantly, it will ensure that organisations that do not abide by the code of conduct will come under regulation. We had the discussion in Committee. The solicitors Thompsons, in their briefing to Committee members before the Committee stage, took the line that has been taken by the hon. Member for Hendon: all trade unions should be exempt. That would include the UDM and others. I pointed that out to a member of the Trades Union Congress, who said "No. We can just have TUC-affiliated organisations." I was not sure how the Bill could exempt TUC affiliates alone. I think that what the Government have put forward will work if we can get a tougher version of the code to clarify the points that other hon. Members and I have raised.
	I now turn to new clause 11 and the scandal that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has already referred to in respect of the COPD scheme. The Government should be proud of bringing compensation to many tens of thousands of miners and their families, who were denied it for many years. However, that has been plundered by unscrupulous solicitors and, I have to say, certain trade unions. Is it a scandal? Yes it is. It has been given some attention by some national newspapers, but not a great deal. If the scandal had taken place in the leafy suburbs of Surrey, I am sure that it would have been on the front page of every national newspaper throughout the country. It is worth bearing in mind that it is because it has taken place mainly in poor former mining communities that it has not received a lot of attention, although I, and other hon. Members, have tried to publicise the issue.
	There are two separate aspects of the scandal. The first is about the way in which certain solicitors have seen this as a quick way to make a lot of money. I first raised the case of Mark Gilbert Morse over three years ago. Those people were not content with getting their fees paid by the Government; they added 25 per cent. on top as a success fee, and they got people to sign agreements saying that they would have the money deducted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, the reaction of many constituents was, "I've signed the agreement so I have to pay that money." Well, they did not have to pay it.
	I am pleased to say that Mark Gilbert Morse quickly decided to pay the money back, but I am still not satisfied. That company and a number of other companies have said that they have paid it back. We have their word, but I suspect that unless someone has complained about the fee being deducted, the money will not have been returned. That is why the new clause is important. We should force solicitors to pay back all the money that has been deducted unlawfully.
	I give credit to the Law Society individual case officers, because some are very good and work very hard in pursuing some of the rogue elements involved in those scandals, but as my hon. Friend said, thatcan be done only if someone makes an individual complaint; otherwise, people will not get justice. Some firms of solicitors have started paying money back, irrespective of whether complaints have been received. Obviously, they feel guilty and think that they will be exposed later, but we are not talking about small amounts of money; we are talking about millions and millions of pounds. That has been taken by firms of solicitors regulated by the Law Society. Clearly, self-regulation has not worked. That is why I have been one of the strongest advocates for independent regulation of solicitors. I am glad that the Government are taking that on board.
	The Bill will cover two other consumer rights issues that need to be addressed. I am not afraid to say this about claims handling companies: I hope that the Bill kills off that industry altogether, because in my opinion there is no need for those companies. They are simply middlemen that have preyed on people and take a cut. If people want legal advice, they should go directly to their solicitors or their trade unions. That should be the best way forward.
	To date, there are no ways of getting at claims handling companies, apart from going to their solicitors. The only way to get at the solicitors is through the Law Society, case by case, because many claims handling companies are still holding on to money that was deducted unlawfully. I took up the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Jobes, who had been contacted by Industrial Disease Compensation, now FreeClaim IDC. Ironically, it was one of the founder members of the Claims Standards Council, which was set up supposedly to regulate the sector. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has not fallen into the elephant trap and allowed the CSC to be the regulatory body for claims companies.
	IDC took £3,600 from my constituent, but all it did was get him to sign a form—which purported to indemnify him against legal costs, when the company knew full well that he would not need to lay out any money at all under the COPD scheme—and pass it on to a firm of solicitors in Liverpool, Silverbeck Rymer. The case went through the process, the money was paid out and the solicitors deducted £3,600 and passed it on to IDC. What did IDC do for that money? It did nothing except pass on the information. It had led Mr. Jobes to believe that he was being indemnified against legal costs.
	Mr. Jobes and the other constituents who have come to see me are not, with no disrespect to them, used to dealing with solicitors. Some are widows, others are in very poor health—including Mr. Jobes—and do not know what to do with legal documents they get sent. Some have even been sent threatening letters saying that if they withdraw from the agreement they will end up with huge liabilities. That is a disgrace.
	I pursued Silverbeck Rymer through the Law Society, which ruled that it had to repay the full amount. Silverbeck Rymer lost the appeal and had to pay the money back, but I hate to think how many other cases there have been in which money was deducted by solicitors and paid to IDC. How much money is sitting in the coffers of IDC for which it did nothing?
	IDC knew that it was doing something wrong. Not long after the publicity on the issue, it changed its agreement so that all that was payable was an administration fee of £100. It was still doing nothing for that £100 except passing information on to solicitors.
	Another scandal remaining to be unearthed is the collusion of former NUM officials and others who had access to membership lists. They prostituted any trade union principles that they had by going to work for IDC and helping it to make a quick buck out of the COPD scheme. The scandal of the £100 administration fee is that all IDC did for the money was pass on information to solicitors, which deducted sums from the final award to pay to IDC. I am pursuing several cases with the Law Society questioning the role of the solicitors in acting as collection agents for claims companies. These scams have cost people tens of thousands of pounds, but they could not have happened without the collusion of solicitors' firms, including some well known high street names. I would have thought better of those firms.
	As well as acting as collection agents, the solicitors are failing to advise their clients that there is no need to pay the £100 administration fee. In fact, if people had gone direct to the solicitors, they would not have paid any fee. The solicitors were not acting independently. They saw IDC and the other claims handling companies as a way to gather hundreds of claims and paid the £100 fee with no questions asked.
	Another issue is quality of service. IDC's website talks of a panel of solicitors, as though they have been vetted or specialise in such claims. In fact, they are high street solicitors who are looking for work. That has meant that not only have some people been ripped off by the fees, but some of the solicitors have taken a sausage machine approach to the cases. They have put the claims through their administration system and, in many cases, accepted the first offer from the Department of Trade and Industry. The work has not been checked and so the firms have settled the cases for much less than other solicitors could have achieved. That is another scandal that the Law Society should address.

Kevan Jones: No, I do not. If people want legal advice, they should go directly to solicitors and cut out the middle man. There is no need for such organisations. Trade unions can be a good source of advice and support for people seeking access to justice, and most people have legal insurance through their home contents insurance. I look forward to the day when the Bill puts claims handlers out of business.
	Another scandal involves the way in which some trade unions have acted. I know that 99 per cent. of trade unions do a fantastic job. They pioneer work and they secure access to justice for many thousands of people that they would not get if they were not members of a trade union. However, Durham NUM and Thompsons solicitors have acted as claims handlers. They are not providing support to existing or retired members but operating a scam in which people who have very little connection with the NUM—often widows of former members—with a COPD case were asked to pay £20 a year to become an associate member of Durham NUM. I have asked what an associate member is, and it is clear that such members have no rights under the trade union legislation. Thompsons told me that it gives people access to the NUM's legal aid scheme, but that does not seem to exist. It appears that people pay £20 a year to Thompsons solicitors, who deduct another 7.5 per cent. from their compensation, if their case is successful. People are never told that they could go elsewhere to pursue their case. Even worse, the NUM and Thompsons have sent out letters telling people that if they stop paying their £20 a year, their case will be withdrawn, and that is just not true.
	I have been denounced in many quarters, some of which I shall refer to shortly, for feeling so strongly about all this. I feel so strongly, though, because the ladies and gentlemen who have come to me have no connection whatever with the NUM, are often very poor and are not used to dealing with solicitors. Yet the NUM has acted as a claims handler, joining people up for a success fee, which is all that that 7.5 per cent. is. The £20 a year is nothing other than an access point to justice.
	I commend the work the NUM has done in some areas, and there is a contrast in the north-east between Durham and Northumberland, where the NUM does not charge anything. It does not matter there who anyone is—an existing member of the NUM or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) said, a member of the community—because they can go to the NUM without it costing them a penny. If they want to make one, Northumberland NUM asks for a voluntary donation afterwards. That is fine: what people do with their compensation after they get it is up to them—they can give it to a cats home, give it to an individual or spend it, but if they want to make a contribution back to the NUM, that is laudable.
	That is not what happens in Durham. There, 7.5 per cent. is taken off the compensation by Thompsons solicitors, then passed to the NUM. It is being suggested that that 7.5 per cent. will fund future litigation and keep the NUM going. I have no problem with that, but Thompsons, who seem to act differently in Durham than in other areas, has had nearly £100 million out of the Government in costs.

David Hamilton: For clarification, let me say that the issue of knee litigation has been on the cards for some years. The Scottish NUM, south Wales NACODS, Derbyshire NUM and, I think, Durham NUM are four unions that have combined to raise£1.2 million on that. I do not see Northumberland among them, and I do not see the other areas.
	When we talk about the trade union movement, we mean more than 6 million trade unionists. Tonight, we are talking about the Compensation Bill, and it clouds the issue to talk about single areas within the NUM. We should talk, as my hon. Friend did, about 99 per cent. of the trade unions being extremely good. That was the correct thing to say.

Bridget Prentice: Concern about trade union exemptions has been a key issue in our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and again today. If we are to protect consumers it is vital that an effective and proportionate mechanism applies to those who provide claims management services. We believe that the best approach is to exempt independent trade unions that provide claims management services to their own members and their members' families, but the exemption will be subject to the condition that trade unions comply with a code of practice that we will develop in consultation with the TUC.
	We have taken a risk-related approach because we believe that full regulation is an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on both trade unions and the not-for-profit sector. Regulation is aimed at commercial claims management companies. The Better Regulation Task Force recommended that course of action and the regulator's initial focus will be on authorising companies that provide a regulated claims management service and tackling companies that attempt to evade it.
	The code outlines the key principles that would apply where a trade union deals with a claim on behalf of a member, and it covers the key issues raised in earlier debates. We have had constructive engagement with the TUC general secretary and his colleagues on the issue, but obviously there is much more work to do. Nevertheless, I hope that the draft gives Members some indication of the approach we are taking.
	May I point out to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the code of practice will be issued by the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State will be the judge of the union's behaviour in relation to the code; the TUC and the unions will have a vital role in policing union activities, but the ultimate decision about exemption will be for the Secretary of State. Those principles are fundamental to provide a good service to trade union members, and we shall hold consultations about the code later this year.
	We believe that the enforcement provisions are effective. If an exempt trade union falls below the standards outlined in the code of practice, the Secretary of State will withdraw the exemption. Once the exemption is withdrawn, the trade union concerned will have to stop providing the services unless it successfully applies for authorisation by the regulator. If it carries on providing the services, or even offers to provide them, without authorisation, it will be committing an offence and will be liable to prosecution.
	Once the exemption for an individual trade union or any other organisation has been withdrawn, the full range of enforcement powers in clause 7 will be available to the regulator. If the organisation is suspected of continuing to provide services, the regulator can require the provision of information and documents, seek a warrant to enter and search premises and apply for an injunction restraining the organisation from providing the services. I hope that reassures Members that the full force of the law will be available to the regulator if people fall below the standard required. The actions of a very few unions, which have been well described during the debate, should not detract from the excellent work of the overwhelming majority of trade unions on behalf of ordinary hard-working people.

Bridget Prentice: I thought that I had just made it as patently clear as I possibly could that, if the trade union falls below the standard set out in the code and continues to offer the services, all the enforcement powers under clause 7 would apply to it, too.
	New clause 1 is unnecessary because we do not need further definition of the criteria in legislation and it would militate against the purpose of exemption. It would be too rigid and might mean, for example, that an individual citizens advice bureau would have tobe assessed against the criteria. That would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and disproportionate.
	New clauses 2 and 5 are also unnecessary. As I have explained, if the behaviour of an exempt organisation falls below the required standard, the Secretary of State can withdraw the exemption. Once it is withdrawn, an exempt organisation that continues to provide the service without authorisation will be committing an offence under clause 6 and can be prosecuted. The separate offence that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire proposes is superfluous, as is a separate power to seek an injunction—it is already contained in the Bill. What he proposes would also make the penalty for failing to comply with the code of practice attached to an exemption more stringent than the penalties for authorised persons who break the rules. That seems to be to be the wrong way round.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that trade unions play an extremely valuable role in assisting ordinary hard-working people. They have a long history of championing the rights of workers in relation to health and safety at work and employment. They are also among the most regulated organisations in the country, which is another reason why it is unnecessary to make them immediately part of the regulatory issue in the Bill. However, we have to recognise the concerns that my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham(Mr. Jones) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) raised about a small number of trade unions in relation to the coal health compensation scheme. I take those concerns very seriously and have been working with them and the Law Society to ensure that those issues are resolved. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon understands the reasons for this approach. We want to do something that is proportionate for trade unions, but we also want the power to protect union members in the rare cases where the service that they receive is not up to scratch. On that basis, I hope that he will not press his new clause.
	On amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire spoke of his concerns about inappropriate and misleading advertising. I agree with him that some of the advertising is outrageous and has to be condemned absolutely. An essential part of the claims management regulatory framework will be rules governing the conduct of authorised persons. Compliance with those rules will be a condition of authorisation and any authorised person who does not comply will face disciplinary action by the regulator. That can include attaching conditions to their authorisation—for example, preventing them from providing a particular type of service or from handling client money. It can also involve suspending their authorisation or cancelling it.
	Advertising is a crucial area. The key issue is that it should not be misleading to consumers. That is covered by the codes of the Advertising Standards Authority and the authorised person's responsibilities can be reinforced in the rules with explicit reference to the ASA codes. The rules will help to ensure that authorised persons adhere to high standards across all their marketing activities, which will be enforceable by the regulator. The rules that we have issued set out what we expect the standards applied to authorised persons to be. That includes not making misleading or exaggerated statements; not using expressions such as "no win, no fee" without qualification, unless there is no possibility of the client having to meet any costs that he may have incurred in connection with the claim; and not offering an immediate cash payment or similar payment as an inducement for making a claim. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
	On new clause 11, the Law Society has taken action to deal with complaints about solicitors who have taken costs in addition to those paid by the Government under the terms of the coal health compensation scheme. The Law Society has assured me that it takes complaints made to it about the scheme very seriously and many solicitors have already been referred to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal for disciplinary action. I empathise with Members who have first-hand experience of the disgraceful behaviour of some of those solicitors. I hope that they take some comfort from the knowledge that action is being taken against those who breach the rules. I understand that some £3.6 million that was made from additional charges has been repaid. But, of course, that is not enough. I know that colleagues in this House are working hard on behalf of their constituents to get additional fees returned, and I welcome the fact that they will continue to do so. I will continue to monitor the Law Society's handling of these complaints.
	I spoke in Committee about the requirement for claims management companies to provide the regulator with details about the information that they give to clients about fees. That is a key aspect of the authorisation criteria. The information that is given to clients should be clear and transparent. That is crucial and will be an important requirement of the rules.
	It is our intention that the regulation should be effective and have teeth. The regulator will not tolerate attempts to mislead or misinform consumers because that would be a clear breach of the rules with which all authorised persons will be expected to comply if they wish to provide a regulated claims management service. An authorised person who is found to be in breach of the rules will be severely reprimanded, and the sanctions will include the authorisation being suspended or cancelled. Given those stringent safeguards, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press new clause 11 to a Division.
	Points were raised about the code of practice. We have an early draft of the code at present, and it is still being discussed in detail with unions, legal professionals and others. We can thus think about including a consideration of clarity about fees and funding in those discussions. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw that Vendside would not be subject to the exemption in the first place. As a separate company, it would have to be authorised if it wanted to continue to carry out claims management services. It is our intention that any subsidiary company, whether owned wholly or in part by a trade union, will not fall within the terms of the exemption. The only bodies covered by the exemption will be independent trade unions listed by the certification officer.
	Let me turn to retrospection. Clause 8 will allow the Secretary of State to make transitional provision in regulations. For example, that will allow provision to be made for the regulator to use his discretion to investigate complaints relating to an authorised person in respect of conduct that began before the commencement of the Bill and continued after that commencement.
	There will be a definition of a member in the exemption order. We have been absolutely clear that the exemption will be limited to members and their families. When trade unions act as claims farmers and pursue claims on behalf of non-members, they will have to be regulated. I have made it clear that we will ensure that there are no loopholes. Trade unions will not be able to sign up associate members only for the purpose of dealing with claims. However, retired members will be included in the exemption because they will clearly be part of a legitimate trade union activity.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) made an interesting point when he asked the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about minimum turnover requirements for smaller businesses. We are consulting on the fees payable by companies for their authorisation. However small a company's turnover, it is the consumer who needs proper safeguards to ensure that there is adequate protection. We are examining the situation so that there is as much balance as possible.
	Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12 will put beyond doubt the fact that the Secretary of State could bring claims management services that were provided in relation to industrial injuries disablement benefits within the regulatory net. As well as listening carefully to hon. Members' concerns, we have continued to speak to many stakeholders about the introduction of the new regulatory regime. That has included discussions with Citizens Advice and Judge Michael Harris, the president of the social security and child support appeals tribunal, both of whom have raised concerns about claims management in relation to claims for industrial injuries disablement benefits and some other welfare benefits. Commercial intermediaries typically charge a flat fee for such a service, or take a percentage of the benefit payment if the claim is successful. Claims of that type would be made at a time when a person was already suffering from the trauma of the injury, which would make them more vulnerable. If consumers are being targeted, we want to be able to help by stepping in and providing appropriate protection.
	We have considered further the definition in clause 3. Despite its breadth, there is sufficient doubt about whether claims management services for such claims would be covered to justify bringing forward the amendments. The amendments explicitly allow the Secretary of State to bring claims management services provided in relation to industrial injuries disablement benefits within the regulatory net by allowing an order to be made which defines these as claims for the purposes of part 2 of the Bill. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that claims management services in relation to industrial injuries disablement benefits could be regulated by order under clause 3(2)(e).
	The amendment is precisely targeted on industrial injuries disablement benefits, which are benefits of a compensatory nature. It does not extend to welfare benefits more generally, because that would be beyond the scope of the Bill. There is some limited evidence of organisations offering advice on claims for other social security benefits on a commercial basis, but they are most active in the area of industrial injuries benefits. Our debate will serve our consideration of the code of practice. All hon. Members should be assured that it will be taken into account.
	I have reflected on the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the initial exemption order under clause 5 and any subsequent restriction or removal of exemption. We hope to capture almost everyone in the first order, but we are working with an unusually broad definition, so if a small number of organisations emerge that fall within the definition but on which it is not appropriate to regulate, subsequent orders can be used to tidy up anomalies. I would not want to take up valuable parliamentary time on those, but I am pleased to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am delighted to accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Minister for her helpful assurances about advertising, which is an important issue. There have been some dreadful examples of advertising by claims handlers and it is welcome that she is to be so active on that issue.
	I welcome the Minister's announcement about industrial injuries benefits take-up campaigns by commercial claims handlers and the amendment that deals with that. It is welcome that she has agreed to the affirmative resolution procedure for the exemption orders.
	I listened to what the Minister said about associate membership of trade unions and the abuse about which we have heard from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). She responded by saying that cases of associate membership will be regulated, and that is also a welcome move.
	There is a lot to welcome, but as the Minister knows I have said from the outset that there should be a level playing field for trade unions and other forms of claims handler. I concede that she has responded to the particular abuse of associate membership, but as we heard from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), there is still concern about organisations such as the BNP trying to convert into trade unions to benefit from the exemption. Over recent years, we have seen a certain desperation in particular sections of trade unions to get at the money in order to survive. Against that background, I am not as confident as the Minister that a purely voluntary arrangement for trade unionsexempting them speciallyis the right way forward. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in the Lobby in support of new clause 1, which is vital if we are to create a level playing field in this area.

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and sorry that we did not reach that part of the debate. In Committee, he cited the example of a car accident in which one of the people involved is unconscious and the other person is a doctor, and asked whether the doctor should not do what he can to look after the injured person. I considered that carefully in discussions with officials, parliamentary counsel and others and those discussions confirmed that that area is sufficiently covered by section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which will come into effect next April. It provides that if a person acts in connection with the care or treatment of a person who lacks capacity in respect of the matter in question and it is in his or her best interest for that treatment to take place, the person providing the care or treatment does not incur any liability that he would not have incurred if the injured person had been able to consent. That does not prevent a claim from being made if the person has been negligent in providing the care or treatment, but in respect of the provision ofthat care or treatment, it is sufficiently covered under section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I hope that that sufficiently reassures the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).

Bridget Prentice: I can confidently give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Mental CapacityAct 2005 will cover people in those circumstancesand rightly so.
	Regarding part 2, all Members who contributed to our debates have been unanimous in their support for the regulation of claims management services. The Bill sets out a framework for such regulation and I hope that our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and again today have clarified a number of outstanding concerns. I am pleased to report that we now have a Bill that will deal appropriately with the inappropriate practices of some claims companies.
	I have explained that the definition of claims management services is wide in order to avoid loopholes, but it will be targeted only at sectors with the greatest risk of consumer detriment. Those sectors will be brought into the regulatory netand, of course, removed, if appropriateby the order of the Secretary of State, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as agreed this evening. We published a draft order last week, seeking views on the sectors that we propose should be included, such as personal injury, housing disrepair, employment, criminal injuries compensation and claims for the mis-selling of financial products.
	I am pleased that hon. Members agreed to the Government amendments, which will allow us to bring claims management services in respect of industrial injuries disablement benefit within the regulatory net. That represents a minor but none the less important addition to the Bill that will help to ensure that consumers do not suffer at the hands of claims management companies.

Oliver Heald: The Bill has been improved during in its passage through Parliament. I join in the thanks to the two Chairmen of the Committee, and I also thank the Minister, who has been courteous and has responded on many points, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and all the Members who have taken part in deliberations on the Bill. Perhaps I should also thank the usual channels for ensuring that we kept in order and got through what we had to get through in Committee.
	We are pleased with the amendment obtained by my noble Friend Lord Hunt that adds clause 2 to the Bill. It allows offers of treatment, rehabilitation and apologies without admissions of liability. That builds on the principles that the Association of British Insurers and the Citizens Advice Bureaux set out in their initiative, Care and Compensation. That should mean that there will in the future be more focus on early settlement of claims and treatment to get victims healthy and back to work as soon as is practicable.
	We are pleased that the Government have been able to listen to pleas to help the victims of mesothelioma, and with the Minister's assurance that that will be underpinned with rules of court and that she will do what she can with her colleagues to speed that through. The lack of joined-up government on the case of Barker  v. Corus was clearly unfortunate and I shall revert to the matter of how much money was spent. Matters were pursued in the wrong way.
	However, in Committee, we supported clause 1, which restates the law of negligence. I hope that it will be possible to follow up the impetus that the amended clause 1 will give with some advertisement of exactly what the law of negligence means and an attempt to educate some of the public authoritiesscouts, guides and others who take part in the desirable activities that we have spent much time discussing.
	Landowners, occupiers and leisure park owners had hoped for some further discussion of what clause 1 means for them because there has been a reasonably sensible and robust attitude to occupiers' liability in the courts. They therefore hoped for some assurance from the Under-Secretary that clause 1 will not change that and that they will not be subject to further cost and burdens in dealing with an unpredictable liability. Much land has natural features and it should not be necessary to erect signs, fences and unsightly and expensive clutter around them. It was hoped that we would hold a little more debate about that to ensure that the law is not being changed. The Under-Secretary's general comments suggest that it is not.
	We hope that the voluntary code for unions will work, despite our reservations. We will watch closely to ensure that it doesthe Under-Secretary need not worry about that. We still believe that it is a pity that the regulator will not be an established regulator such as the Financial Services Authority. However, the Government could reassure us by announcing the appointment of a senior figure, with knowledge of that world, to work with a major trading standards office. There has been speculation that someone of the calibre of Mr. Mark Boleat may be available for the role. That would be most welcome. When can we expect the announcement? Have I missed it?
	Overall, the Bill has some useful provisions to help tackle the perceived compensation culture. It is a modest measureand there is a big agenda to tacklebut it is greatly improved.

Simon Hughes: The Bill started as a measure of one part, grew to one of two parts and ended up as one of three parts. It is none the worse for thatindeed, the third addition is broadly welcome.
	Like others, I am grateful for the constructive way in which everybody has participated. It is fair to say that, although part 1 was controversial, it probably reflects the broader majority view across the House. Although some have concerns about adding to lawyers' opportunities, we must none the less hope that they will be restrained.
	I say to the hon. Member for Canterbury(Mr. Brazier) that counsellors' advice to Ministers, which I was kindly shown, on the may or shall option was persuasive. Perhaps he will be slightly reassured by that, although I am happy to try to persuade him outside later.
	It is regrettable that, in your absence, Mr. Speaker, and through no fault of yours, we were unable to debate the last three groups of amendments on Report. One would have allowed us to raise the other definition issue that rightly took up time in Committee and the House of Lordswhether desirable activity was the right phrase. Again, I was encouraged to know that Treasury counsel and those who advise the Government and the draftsmen and women see the merit of a good argument. They nearly appeared to suggest that an alternative might be more acceptable. They just backed off that in the advice that the Under-Secretary shared with me.

Simon Hughes: I hope that we have not lost the watching millions as a result of our tightly argued case for the legal alternatives. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I had hoped to persuade Parliament that phrases such as an activity of social value or socially valuable, which are to be found elsewhere in case law, would make a better argument, not least because they would not allow ambiguous interpretation. That is, they would not allow someone to ask to whom the activity was desirable. By definition, they would mean that it was valuable to the community, whereas desirable could mean that it was desirable merely to an individual. However, the opportunity to win that argument in the last round was counted out by the time constraints on our debate.
	The second substantive issue on the provision of claims management services contained only one major controversial point, and it remained controversial to the end. That was the issue of whether trade unions should be included or excluded from the provisions. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendments that will allow for the subsequent statutory instruments to be debated in both Houses as a matter of course. That means that the matter can be returned to and that we will have the debate that I, and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and some other Labour Members, want to have. There are arguments on both sides; this is not a cut and dried case. However, the consumers out there need the reassurance that they will have a good, properly regulated service, and that they will not be abused, as some people have been in the trade union context, along with many more outside that context. That is our objective.
	When the Bill was first introduced, we were all keen to use it as an opportunity to deal with the great needs of mesothelioma sufferers. I pay tribute to the Minister, her civil servants and those who worked with them to ensure that we had the amendment on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) raised a small matter, which could be corrected without any prejudice to anyone when the Bill goes to the Lords to ensure that everyone is best protected. I would be very keen to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that the final drafting does not delay the Bill beyond the end of this Session, as it is the Minister's wish and mine that that should not happen. I want us to make the Bill watertight, so that we do not restrict the opportunity of people with the disease, or their families, to get compensation. I am sure that, with that good will, we will be able to deliver.
	The thing that will be remembered about the Bill is that last change. It will be remembered as the Bill that gave a chance of being compensated to thousands of familiesin as much as money can ever compensate themfor a serious disease that often remained undiagnosed for a long time but in the end took its toll very quickly. Up and down the land, people will now be able to get some compensation. That is a good bit of work done. As the Minister said, Parliament sometimes comes together across party boundaries to make sure that we look after the people who send us here.

Michael Clapham: This is a small but significant Bill.Part 2 was obviously needed, as we have seen chaos develop after the miners' coal health claims came into being, because of claims farmers. Those companies came in and cold-called people, collected claims together, and sold them on to solicitors. Sometimes, they would hold on to them before passing them on to solicitors later for a huge fee. We have heard from two colleagues about the kind of problems that those activities have caused in their constituencies. Part 2 is therefore very welcome, as it will bring regulation and order where there was none.
	I thank the Minister for her hard work in bringing forward new clause 13, which will provide an opportunity for people suffering from mesothelioma to have their compensation paid fairly. It will reverse the Barker decision, which, in my estimation, involved a great deal of unfairness. The Minister gave a great deal of thought to the issue of retrospection. That retrospection will provide an opportunity for most of the cases caught between the Barker decision of 3 May and the current position to be reviewed. I thank the Minister for what she has done. She worked hard to bring forward new clause 13, which will be beneficial.
	Overall, the Bill is significant. We will look back on it for two main reasons: first, for bringing regulation were there was none, to control the claims farmers; and secondly, for new clause 13 on mesothelioma.

Julian Brazier: I am really embarrassed by that. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	I must allow time for others to speak; I shall simply say that if the Bill puts a stop to the silly cases that come along every few months in the lower courts, Parliament will have done something worthwhile tonight.

Kevan Jones: This has been described as a small Bill, but I believe that it will have a dramatic effect outside the goldfish bowl of Westminster. Part 2 is vital to the cleaning up of the most disreputable part of the semi-legal profession, the claims handlers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I have described the trauma and heartache that those organisations have caused in former coalmining communities. I congratulate the Government on their proposals to tighten up the claims handling industry, and I hope that the Bill will lead to its abolition and disappearance.
	I also congratulate the Minister and her team. I agree with what the hon. Member for Canterbury(Mr. Brazier) said about her open-door policy: she has been prepared to listen to my representations and those of other Members. She has also pushed through a vital measure, new clause 13, which will have a dramatic effect on the lives of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers. Before I entered the House I was a full-time trade union official. I dealt with asbestos-related claims on a daily basis, and witnessed the heartache not just of individuals when they were diagnosed, but of their families afterwards. Some of themmainly menwere only in their forties. No amount of compensation can make up for the misery and cruel deaths that those people suffer, or for the heartache that their families undergo, but I believe that the new clause will right a wrong. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who chairs the all-party asbestos group, on his tremendous work in pursuing not just this issue but the general issue of asbestos victims.
	This is a good Bill. When people ask what the difference between a Conservative and a Labour Government is, we can say that although the all-party support for new clause 13 was welcome, it would probably not have been there without a Labour Government. We should not forget that, when we ask how Labour can make a difference in constituencies.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall take motions1 to 8 together.

Jeff Ennis: I feel really humble at this point, having the backing of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). That underlines the fact that we are not talking about a Doncaster issue. We are talking not just about a south Yorkshire issue, but about a Yorkshire regional issue and a project that has the capability to be a flagship project not just for Doncaster and south Yorkshire, but for Yorkshire and the Humber in general.
	The council is committed to resolving problems associated with the developer-led proposals near junction 5 of the M18 to reduce any adverse impact on the FARRRS scheme. That is the area of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North. The establishment of a link road at junction 5 of the M18 to bring the former Hatfield colliery site forward as a new power park has the support of all my hon. Friends from Doncaster, but it will have to meet the tests of the statutory planning processes. However, as we stand, FARRRS is before us as a major regional transport and regeneration initiative and awaits the ministerial green light to proceed.
	To conclude, I invite the Minister to use the experience of Robin Hood airport to look forward. The Government were right to sell the RAF Finningley air base for aviation and the Tory Government were wrong to earmark it for a prison or a massive gravel pit, which is as far as their aspirations for the site went. This Government were right to give approval to the airport after a public inquiry and the critics who said that the airport would simply divert jobs and add no value have been proved wrong. The Doncaster MPs were right in believing that this could be one of the biggest economic wins for our region and the Government have been right to invest in good integrated transport initiatives across Yorkshire. If the Minister recognises the regional importance of FARRRS and gives programme entry to this scheme, he too will be proved right and it will be a decision that he will look back on with pride in future years.

Stephen Ladyman: Before I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), I associate myself with the comments about our former colleague, Kevin Hughes. Kevin was a fine man, an excellent MP and a good friend. I enjoyed many meals and glasses with him in the Members' Dining Room over the years. I shall miss him and I know that the whole House, as well as the people of Doncaster, will miss him.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the passionate way in which he put his case. I am impressed by the bevy of talent that has arrayed itself around him on the Benches: my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), all of whom have campaigned vigorously and hard for this scheme. They have all approached me in different guises and at different times to make sure that I was aware of their support for it. I am meeting many of them later this week to discuss the plans further.
	Good local transport is fundamental to building thriving and prosperous communities. That is why, since 2000-01, we have more than doubled the funding to local authorities for transport in every region to more than 1.6 billion in 2006-07. Funding for local transport in the Yorkshire and Humber region has risen from 75 million to 160 million this yeara90 per cent. increase in real terms. South Yorkshire alone will benefit from more than 37 million for small-scale schemes and highway maintenance this year.
	We need to ensure that our funding for new transport infrastructure is focused on the schemes that will most effectively address the needs of each region. To achieve that, the Government have for the first time given regions a say in decision making about transport schemes that affect them at a regional and local level. In Yorkshire and Humberand in other regionsthe regional development agency, the regional assembly, local authority partners and other key interestshave been able to consider together their transport programmes against the region's high-level objectives and to develop a prioritised and affordable programme that offers the best overall contribution to meeting those objectives. They have worked together to identify which of the many proposals before them should go forward, and in what timescale. Without exception, they have done a good job of that.
	The advice from the Yorkshire and Humber region, which included the Finningley and Rossington regeneration route schemeas my hon. Friend says, that is known as FARRRSwas received at the end of January. We announced our decisions on 6 July. The region has confirmed that it regards FARRRS as an important priority and recommended that we provided 72 million from the indicative regional funding allocation starting in 2009-10.
	In our response to the region, and following its advice, we included FARRRS on the indicative list of schemes that are expected to start construction in the period beginning in 2009, subject, of course, to securing all necessary statutory powers and compliance with the Department's scheme approval requirements. That is consistent with Doncaster council's timetable for starting work on FARRRS around 2009 or 2010.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said, we have not at this stage approved FARRRS for entry to our programme of major transport schemes. That is because there are several aspects of Doncaster's business case that the Department is still considering with Doncaster. However, I can confirm that we fully recognise the objectives that FARRRS aims to achieve: to support the growth of Robin Hood airport; to provide access to prospective regeneration sites, such as at Rossington and Finningley; and to improve accessibility to the strategic road network for the communities to the south-east of Doncaster. There are two key issues that the Department is discussing with Doncaster that need to be carefully considered before we reach a final decision on programme entry for FARRRS.
	The first issue relates to the growth of Robin Hood airport itself. As my hon. Friend said, one of the principal objectives of FARRRS is to provide an improved route to Robin Hood airport to support its further growth. The airport already holds a planning permission that will allow its expansion so that it can handle 2.8 million passengers a year and 50,000 tonnes of freight. I note the progress that has already been made by the airport and congratulate the owners on achieving their millionth passenger in June this year. Clearly, however, air travel is a competitive market and Robin Hood airport will need to compete effectively with other airports to meet its long-term growth aspirations. That means that we need to examine carefully a range of airport traffic forecasts when assessing the need for surface access infrastructure to cope with increased demand. We need to be satisfied that the future growth of the airport will be sufficient to justify major investment in improved surface access infrastructure. We also need to be satisfied that the airport operator will be able to make an appropriate financial contribution to the cost of the FARRRS scheme, which is also dependent on the airport's commercial success.
	The second point is that we need to be satisfied that building FARRRS is not going to cause serious congestion and traffic problems on other sections of the road network that serves Doncaster and the surrounding area. It would be in no one's interests to build a scheme that resulted in increased congestion on other key routes and made accessibility both to the airport and other areas more difficult. An important factor is the extent to which FARRRS would generate new traffic by facilitating new development at locations such as Rossington and Finningley. The effect on the wider road network of the traffic generated by FARRRS also needs to be considered alongside the traffic that might be generated by other planned and prospective developments in the Doncaster area.
	I understand that the Highways Agency has indicated that the developments that could be opened up by FARRRS, together with other prospective developments that would feed traffic on to the M18, may well cause unacceptable traffic queuing and congestion on the motorway. The agency's view is that, to accommodate that traffic, significant improvements may be needed to junction 3 of the M18 and to the M18 itself between junctions 2 and 3, as well as to White Rose way, which runs north from junction 3 of the M18 into Doncaster, and, perhaps, to the A1(M) in the longer term.
	Doncaster council has plans to make some small-scale improvements to White Rose way in the shorter term, but it is possible that full dualling of that route would be needed if the full regeneration benefits of FARRRS are to be realised. That could cost in the order of 25 million and was not included in the region's advice for funding in the period up to 2015. Similarly, the region has made no provision so far to fund improvements to either the M18 or the A1(M) in the period up to 2015.
	We therefore need to look carefully at how far the construction of FARRRS would necessitate the construction of other transport infrastructure improvements. If such improvements are needed, we will also need to consider whether funding could be provided for them on an appropriate time scale within the region's indicative funding allocation. The region itself flagged up that issue in its advice to us, and it is something on which we may need to seek its further advice.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me, and I understand why, but those are the very discussions that we need to have with the council. We need to find out whether it is prepared to put its hand in its pocket to dual White Rose way. If it is, we can build that into our calculations about FARRRS, as White Rose way would not affect its development. The quicker we can have such discussions, the quicker we can come to the sorts of conclusions for which my hon. Friend is hoping.
	The regeneration issues raised by FARRRS also need to be considered in the context of the spatial strategy for the region and the local area. The area to the south-east of Doncaster was designated as a strategic economic zone in the objective 1 European regeneration programme. Doncaster has made significant progress as a result of that investment and we all want that to continue in a sustainable way. Now that the objective 1 programme is drawing to a close, there needs to be a debate about how best to continue the regeneration effort. That is being taken forward in the Yorkshire and Humber region through the revisions to the regional spatial strategy and, in Doncaster, by the production of a local development framework to replace the unitary development plan. It is important that we take account of the outcome of the consultations relating to the location of future development in the approval of new infrastructure such as FARRRS.
	My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of bringing forward funding for FARRRS if the scheme can be progressed more quickly than Doncaster is currently proposing. It would be for the region to consider whether that could be accommodated in the indicative regional funding allocation and whether any scheme should be rescheduled to facilitate the release of funding. However, I have to warn him that I doubt whether the scheme could complete all necessary statutory procedures and be ready to start construction before 2009 or 2010. The funding programme for the region that we have announced makes money available for FARRRS in the period 2009-10 to 2015-16. That comfortably aligns with Doncaster's programme for a start on site around 2009 or 2010.
	In closing this debate, I emphasise that we are working to improve transport in South Yorkshire as a whole to ensure that people are better able to access jobs and essential services. I fully appreciate the importance that my hon. Friend and other Members who are with him tonight attach to the scheme in supporting the growth of Robin Hood airport and contributing to the regeneration of South Yorkshire. Although I cannot say today when we will be ready to announce a decision on programme entry for FARRRS, I can assure the House that we are working hard to resolve all the outstanding issues with Doncaster council as quickly as possible. I promise my hon. Friend that I personally will guarantee that no hold-ups are caused by the Department for Transport or the Highways Agency. We will make sure that decisions are made as expeditiously as possible to achieve the conclusion that he wants.
	I emphasise, too, the fact that the local transport plan system has provided more certainty of funding for local authorities so that they can tackle local issues to improve road maintenance and traffic management, enhance road safety and make buses more accessible and integrated with other transport modes. While those are small-scale investments in relation to FARRRS, I hope that Doncaster council and the other South Yorkshire authorities can use that funding to help improve access to Robin Hood airport by sustainable means. That will help, too, to meet the region's aim of improving public transport access to its region airports. In conclusion, I look forward to meeting my hon. Friends later this week and I promise to give them my full co-operation in trying to move this forward as expeditiously as the region wishes.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes pastTen o'clock.